1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that his Micromax handset Model A356 (B8 Gold) bearing IMEI No.911357701423073 & 911357701623573 did not function during warranty period due to “Power does not switch on” and he handed over the set for repair to OP.2, the ASC of the Company vide Job Sheet dt.15.1.2016.It is submitted that the handset was misplaced during possession of OP.2 and the said OP.2 tried to replace the set with a damaged piece of handset to which the complainant did not accept.As the handset was not received by the complainant for a pretty long period, the complainant got issued a notice on 29.2.2017 on the OP.2 but in vain.Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the handset with a new one of same model or to pay its cost besides Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

   OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.The OP.2 though entered his appearance through his A/R, did not prefer to file any counter.Hence the matter was heard from the complainant alone through his A/R for orders on merit.The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.We have gone through the materials available on record.

3. The A/R for the complainant has filed some additional information in this case through a memo stating that the OP.2 had received the retail invoice of the handset as required by him at the time of taking the handset for repair and the said invoice was also misplaced along with the handset.Hence the complainant could not furnish the copy of invoice.Further it is submitted that the OP.2 in the job sheet has wrongly mentioned the model number of the set as A356 instead of A350 and actually there is no A356 model of Micromax manufactured by the Company.The rate of Micromax A350 (Black-Gold) as ascertained from the Net is Rs.26, 999/- the copy of which is available on record.

4. The case of the complainant is that he handed over the set to OP.2 for repair within the warranty period but it was misplaced by the OP.2. On demand, the OP.2 offered a defective set to which the complainant did not accept.Legal notice dt.28.2.2017 also did not yield any result.In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding, we have lost opportunity to know anything from them.It is also ascertained from the reliable source that the OP.2 has closed his Service Centre at Jeypore.The OP.1 is to take serious note of it.

5. The ASC is being run by the Micromax Company having administrative control over it.We have seen in many cases filed before this Forum that the ASC of Micromax Co. at Jeypore is playing mischief with the customers and they are being harassed by the ASC, may be within the knowledge of the Company.For the lapses committed by the ASC, the same is the liability of the Company itself.In the present case in hand, the complainant has intimated the fact of misplacing the handset to the Company as well as OP.2 but nobody bothered.As such, we feel it proper to direct the OP.1 Company either to replace the handset with new one of same model and brand or to refund the cost of the handset to the complainant.Since the set is a new one and the complainant has not used the handset to his satisfaction, he must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.Considering the sufferings, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.Further the cost of the handset bears interest.

6. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 being the manufacturer is directed either to replace the handset Model No.A350 with a new one or to refund Rs.26, 999/- towards its cost with interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.1.2016 (date of handing over the set to OP.2) and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)