SMT.RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-

                        Unfair Trade Practice in respect of saleing defective mobile hand set to the complainant are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Party.

2.                     The case of the complainant in short are that the complainant purchased a Real Me APPO mobile hand set from the Opp.Party by paying an amount of Rs.7300/-. It is also alleged that complainant wrongly paid Rs.8300/- instead of Rs.7300/- which was later refunded by the Opp.Party to the complainant. It is further stated by the complainant that after the date of purchase of the mobile hand set, certain defects were detected and complainant was unable to run the mobile hand set in question. After occurrence of the defects, the complainant rushed to the mobile shop of the Opp.Party and requested the Opp.Party to rectify the defects and on its non rectification to supply a new hand set which is badly essential in day-to-day life. But the Opp.Party turned a deaf ear to the word of the complainant with some plea or other  for which the complainant duely harassed and took shelter of this forum praying for direction to the Opp.Party to provide a Real Me APPO mobile and in case of its non-availability return of the cost of the mobile set.

3.                     On receipt of the Notice Opp.Party appeared-dealer into the case but did not prefer to file any written statement into the dispute. Accordingly, OP was set ex-parte U/S-13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P.Act,1986.

4.                     Heard the complainant and S.S.Samal the Opp.Party, of the present dispute, authorized dealer to sale the mobile handsets, perused the documents filed by the complainant. Complainant, in order to substantiate her case, filed a attested Xerox copy of Invoice bearing No.1243 dtd.26.12.18 issued in favour of the complainant by the Op-dealer. The principal allegation of the complainant relates to manufacturing defects in mobile hand set and its replacement. It is the case of the Complainant that, being insisted by Op-dealer, Complainant purchased the disputed mobile hand-set from Op-dealer and relying on the version of the Op-dealer complainant purchased the said mobile hand-set. Though Opp.Party did not file any written statement but was allowed to take part in the hearing of the case U/S-13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P.Act,1986. The Opp.Party submitted that he has never insisted the complainant to purchase the mobile hand set in question rather complainant in her own choice purchased the same. It is further submitted that Opp.Party is only act as an authorized dealer of different mobile manufacturing company for its sale and in absence of the manufacturing Company as a party the Opp.Party dealer can’t replace the of mobile-set. It is also submitted that as per the terms and conditions of retail invoice issued to the complainant ‘goods once sold will not be taken back or exchange’ and complainant has never approached the Opp.Party or the authorized service centre for rectification of the defects occurred in the mobile hand set and in the circumstances, the present Opp.Party has not committed any unfair trade practice.

                            Considering the submission of the parties and on perusal of invoice it appears that complainant has failed to prove that the Opp.Party has insisted her to purchase the specific mobile hand set. No evidence is produced before this Forum in this regard. Further as per the terms and conditions of the invoice which is a post sale contact between the parties, goods once sold cannot be returned which is well within the knowledge of the complainant-consumer. It is the settled principle of law that in case of allegation of manufacturing defect the manufacturing company is a necessary party to the dispute for replace of the mobile hand set. But, in the instant case, the manufacturing company is not impleaded as a party.

                            However, we noticed that the mobile hand set was purchased on dtd.26.12.18 and the complaint is filed on dtd.17.01.19 just after few days of the purchase of the mobile hand set. We feel that without any valid reason, no consumer can file a complaint just to invite a unnecessary litigation, in addition to the allegation complainant has not prayed for a single pie for compensation and cost, which indicates that Complainant is not satisfied with the mobile hand-set and only needs its replacement within the same cost.

                            In the circumstances, we direct the Opp.Party to replace the mobile hand set to the complainant of her own choice of same cost. In case of its non-availability, Opp.Party shall refund Rs.7300/- to the complainant on production of existing mobile hand set. As per our aforesaid observation, no unfair trade practice has been committed by the Opp.Party and technicality involved in the dispute, but as a good gesture and satisfaction of the consumer the order is to be implemented. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986.

                         No order as to cost and compensation of the dispute.

               Pronounced in the open Court, this 23rd day of May-2019.

                                I, agree.

                                 Sd/-                                             Sd/-

                           PRESIDENT                                 MEMBER