By  Smt. Sheena V.V., Member :

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant had produced a mobile phone, manufactured by M/s Micromax company, 1^st opposite party, from 4^th opposite party, Venu’s Digital Arcade on 31/10/2014. Within few months of purchasing, the mobile stopped working. So, the complainant was approached to 4^th opposite party, and as per the guidance of 4^th opposite party, approached the authorized service centre Tech Beam, 3^rd opposite party on 14/07/2015. They thoroughly examined the mobile set and said that the battery has to be charged at a cost of Rs.600/- and took advance of Rs.200/-. They also promised to replace the battery within a few days. With the repeated demands of complainant, the opposite parties had failed to replace the battery so far. So, the complainant had purchased another mobile to manage his works. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is filed to get the cost of mobile and advance amount of battery with compensation.

          2) On receiving the notice of the complaint, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were continuously absent and so set ex-parte. 3^rd opposite party appeared before the Forum through learned counsel and vakkalath also filed. But there was no version filed by 3^rd opposite party. 4^th opposite party also appeared before the Forum through counsel and filed detailed version. In the version they denied all the averments in the complaint. 4^th opposite party stated in the version that they are unnecessary party in the complaint. Hence dismiss this complaint against 4^th opposite party.

          3) The points to be considered that

                   1) whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service

                       or not ?

                   2) If so what reliefs and costs.

          4) When he case is posted for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit and 4 documents produced which are marked as Ext. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of cash bill; Ext. P2 is the job sheet dated 14/07/15; Ext. P3 is the email copy dated 30/07/15 and Ext. P4 is the reply of email. There is no contra evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          5) We have gone through the affidavit and documents of complainant. Ext. P1 cash bill is proved the purchase of mobile phone from 4^th opposite party dtd. 31/10/14 and Ext. P2 Job Sheet, it stated the problem reported as battery no charging and also reveals the payment of advance amount. Believing the words of complainant and without the evidence of opposite parties, we inclined to allow the complaint.

          6) In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 3^rd opposite party is directed to return Rs.9,400/- (Rupees Nine thousand four hundred), the cost of product and advance amount of battery, and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost and compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After complying the order 3^rd opposite party can recover the amount from 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer of the product.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31^st day of August 2017.