1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Intex-Eco handset having IMEI No.911407900477329 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.6531 dt.06.03.2015 for Rs.3800/- and the handset did not function properly within warranty period.  It is submitted that the complainant approached OP.1 who also repaired the handset on 08.9.2015 and 21.9.2015 but the OP could not bring the set into order.  Thereafter as per advice of OP.1, the complainant handed over the set to OP.3 who is the Authorised Service Centre of the handset on behalf of the Company.  The OP.3 received the set with complaint “phone automatic restart, set over heat and call log not shown” and also issued job sheet dt.25.1.2016 but in spite of efforts the handset is not working.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.3800/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.36, 200/- towards compensation on various counts to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in any manner.  The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that if the handset of the complainant did not work after repair it was to be sent to the Company for further verification and if the defect is not rectified then the handset will be replaced with a new one.  The Ops contended that the complainant has not handed over the set to them and has come up with allegation.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the A/R for the complainant in absence of Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the complainant stated that he purchased the handset on 06.3.2015 from OP.1 but it did not function after a few days of its use for which he approached OP.1 two times.  On both the occasions i.e. on 08.9.15 and 21.9.2015 the OP.1 who repairs the handset has tried to bring the set into order but failed.  Further as per advice of OP.1 the complainant has also handed over the set to OP.3 who is the ASC of the Company.  In absence of counter and participation of OP.1 in this proceeding, the above allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Hence it was clearly ascertained that during warranty period, the OP.1 has repaired the set for two times but failed to rectify the defects.

5.                     It is seen that the OP No.3 has received the set on 25.1.2016 with complainant “phone automatic restart, set over heat and call log not shown”.  The set was returned to the complainant on 27.1.2016 as ascertained from the job sheet but according to the complainant, after repair the problems persist in the handset.  It was the averment of Ops 2 & 3 that if the phone did not function even after repair, the complainant had to handover the set to them either for repair at Company level or for replacement of the set with a new one but the complainant without doing so has filed this case.

6.                     The above contentions of the Ops are sarcastically in nature.  If a customer has to go repeatedly to the repair without any fruitful result, he will definitely frustrate and will try to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance.  Further it is also seen that the OP.1 has repaired the set for two times and due to non working of set, the OP.3 has also repaired the set once.  In spite of efforts, the Ops could not bring the set into working order. In view of above facts we come to a definite conclusion that the set has got inherent manufacturing defect and needs either replacement or refund of its cost.  In this case we feel that refund of cost of handset is justified and OP-2 is to refund Rs.3800/- with interest @ 12% p.a.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Hence he is entitled for some compensation and considering the sufferings we feel a sum of Rs.1500/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.3800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 06.03.2015 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.1500/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)