Complainant by filing this complaint has stated that on June 26, 2012 he purchased a mobile on payment of Rs. 10,800/- from O.P.-1 which started giving troubles after a few days and for repairs work  it was given to O.P.-2  on 10/07/2012 which was refunded on 24/07/2012. Since the defect was not entirely rectified the said mobile was again given to O.P.-3 on 09/09/2012. O.P.-3 kept it more than one month and the same was returned on 10/10/2012. Fact remains that even after repairs work the said mobile phone was not functioning accurately and so the set was taken to O.P.-4 who kept the mobile set still with them.

The specific case of the complainant is that after purchasing the mobile from O.P.-1 he tried to use after its repairs work by the O.Ps. but since there might be manufacturing defects of the mobile and as such it had been kept by O.P.-4 but not yet refunded the same to him. So the complainant filed this case for a direction upon the O.P.-1 either to replace the mobile or to refund the money as prayed by him before Ld. Forum.

The O.Ps. did not appear and contest the case in spite of notices sent to them. Hence, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing.

Decision with reasons

The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset of Motorola at a consideration of Rs.10,800/- from O.P.-1 on 26/06/2012 and since purchase it is giving trouble to the complainant which was brought to the notice of the O.Ps. but even after repair the mobile set was not working as a defect free set and so the set was given to O.P.-4 who kept the set till date. So the complainant asked for replacement of the mobile set or to refund the money from O.P.-1.

We have gone through details of the records and observed that it is true that the complainant purchased the mobile set from O.P.-1 and for its defect so many times this set was given to O.Ps. but the set was not defect free and the set is now lying with O.P.-4 for which he has claimed either to replace or to refund money to him by O.Ps. Since the O.Ps. did not appear and controverted the allegation as made out by the complainant so it is accepted position that since the mobile set became defective during the warranty period of one year and for its defect the O.P.-1, Dealer from whom the complainant purchased the set on payment of Rs.10,800/- have responsibility to replace the set or refund money of the complainant.

We think that the ends of justice will be made if the O.Ps. are directed to replace the mobile by a defect free new set or to refund money of the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- but we do not incline to award any compensation in this case.

In the result, the case is allowed in part.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed in part ex-parte against the O.Ps. with a litigation cost of  Rs.2000/-.

The O.Ps. are directed to replace a new mobile set by a defect free new one or to refund money to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay and disobeyance of  Forum’s order O.Ps. shall have to pay penalty @ Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if any reluctant attitude of the O.Ps. are found in complying the Forum’s order in that case penal proceeding u/s-27 of the C. P. Act, 1986 shall be initiated against the O.Ps.

Since the O.Ps. remain unrepresented during the proceedings, the copy of the order meant for the O.Ps. be handed over to the complainant for causing service and return.