This case coming on 08.09.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri E.V. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri B.V. Appa Rao, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties 2 and 3 being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. C.V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order in his favour and against the Opposite Parties as follows: a)  Directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,100/- (Rupees Five thousand and one hundred only) being the value of the mobile hand set along with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase i.e., 5.11.2010 till the date of payment; b) For the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) towards damages for the deficiency of service caused by the Opposite Parties resulting in the mental agony and financial hardship caused to the Complainant; c) Costs of this Complaint and; d) For such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The 1^st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the Complaint with exemplary costs.

3.       The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 did not resist the claim of the Complainant as they were set exparte and remained set exparte.

 4.      The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the Complainant had purchased the mobile hand set bearing Model No. Micromax Q-6, IMEI Nos.910058000036573, 910058000146750 from the 1^st Opposite Party on 05.11.2010 for Rs.5,100/- (Rupees Five thousand and One hundred only) and the said amount was paid in cash by the Complainant and received the Receipt No.1-9044 from the 1^st Opposite Party on the same day.   Thereafter, the Complainant had approached the office of the 2^nd Opposite Party due to problem in key pad and handed over the said mobile hand set to the 2^nd Opposite Party for service, the 2^nd Opposite Party being  the Authorized Service Center of the 3^rd Opposite Party, on 8.7.2011.   The 2^nd Opposite Party also issued a Customer Job Card bearing No.2231125 and Job Order No.018227 and promised the Complainant that they would rectify the same and inform the Complainant,   as soon as they rectify it.   Thereafter, the Complainant visited the office of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties several times.   The Complainant also got issued a registered lawyers notice on 30.08.2011 to all the Opposite Parties who received the said notices.   Thereafter, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties got issued a reply to the notice given by the Complainant.   The 3^rd Opposite Party kept quiet without giving any reply.   Hence, this Complaint.

5.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit, besides written arguments to support his claim.   Exs. A1 to A8 are marked for the Complainant.

6.       On the other hand, the 1^st Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant, by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that the  averments/allegations mentioned in the complaint by the Complainant that the Complainant took the above problem to the notice of the 1^st Opposite Party who is the authorized dealer of the 3^rd Opposite Party and to that effect the 1^st Opposite Party also did not give any proper responsible answer and more over the 1^st Opposite Party with due negligence replied that his duty is to sell mobile and he was no more concerned about the service of the said mobile hand set which was purchased from the 1^st Opposite Party by the Complainant on 5.11.2010 and etc., are all utter false and the 1^st Opposite Party strictly denied the same; the Complainant purposefully created a cock and bull story for his illegal gain and the 1^st Opposite Party  stated further that after purchasing the above referred mobile hand set by the Complainant , he never approached to the 1^st Opposite Party at any point of time.    The 1^st Opposite Party stated that he received a registered lawyer’s notice from the Complainant through his counsel and he got issued a suitable reply for the same.   So, there is no deficiency of service on its part as the Complainant never approached it.   As such, the 1^st Opposite Party is not at all liable or responsible for the manufacturing defects and that there is no cause of action to the Complainant for filing this Complaint against the 1^st Opposite Party.   The Complainant filed this Complainant against the 1^st Opposite Party with unclean hands and evil intention only to grab money for his illegal gain.   The 1^st Opposite Party further stated that the manufacturing company is only liable and responsible for their products, as the manufacturing company provided warranty for their products and also directly provided their authorized service centre i.e., the 2^nd Opposite Party. As such, the 1^st Opposite Party is not at all liable or responsible.   Hence, the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are only liable and responsible for their products being the authorized service centre and the manufacturer.    Therefore, the 1^st Opposite Party asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint against it with exemplary costs in the circumstances of the case and in the best interest of justice.

7.       However, no exhibits are marked for the 1^st Opposite Party.

8.       The matter has been treated as heard on behalf of the Complainant.

          The matter has not been heard on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party.

9.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from the 1^st Opposite Party by paying Rs.5,100/- on 5.11.2010 as shown by Ex.A1  Sale Invoice.   After 8 months i.e., on 8.7.2011 as the key pad was not working, the Complainant had approached the 2^nd Opposite Party Authorized Service Centre as shown by Ex.A2 Customer Job Card.   In the said Customer Job Card, it is also mentioned by the 2^nd Opposite Party that the instrument in question was in warranty.    After wards as the mobile phone in question was not returned, the Complainant issued the legal notice (Ex.A3) dated 30.08.2011 to all the 3 Opposite Parties.   On 12.09.2011, the 1^st Opposite Party sent the reply lawyer’s notice (Ex.A6) to the Complainant stating that it was never approached by the Complainant.   We see that as the  cell phone was handed over to the Authorized Service Centre, it was the matter between the 2^nd Opposite Party (Authorized Service Centre) and the Complainant, and the 1^st Opposite Party has nothing to do with the matter.   Ex.A8 is the Registered Reply Lawyer’s Notice got issued by M/s. Arun Cell Care i.e., the 2^nd Opposite Party Authorized Service Centre.   In it the 2^nd Opposite Party clearly stated:

“2. your client handed over the mobile set to my client on 8.7.2011 for its repair.   The allegation that on 18.07.2011, my client gave rash and negligent answer to your client is absolute false.

“3. The problem in the mobile set is with key paid strip and for its repair my client sent the mobile set to its Head Office.   My client informed your client that the repairs will take more time.    Your client agreed for the same and handed over the mobile set.   All the problems can be rectified with the repairs done by the Head Office.    Hence, this reply.

          “Please advise your client to wait for some more time in order to return the mobile set after due to rectification of its defects.”  

It makes amply clear that the Complainant handed over mobile set to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 8.7.2011 for its repair.   Though the 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant, through Registered Reply Lawyer’s Notice on 20.9.2011 (Ex.A8), that it would return the mobile set (to the Complainant) after due rectification of its defects, so far to date the mobile set was not returned to the Complainant at all.   This clearly shows that there is outright deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party.   This also makes it clear that neither the 1^st Opposite Party nor the 3^rd Opposite Party is responsible for the hardship caused to the Complainant herein.   As such, we dismiss the case against the Opposite Parties 1 and 3.   But we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party is solely responsible for the hardship caused to the Complainant as it failed to return the mobile set, after due rectification its defects, to the Complainant.   As such, the 2^nd Opposite Party is liable to pay the cost of the mobile set in question with interest from the date of taking the mobile set from the Complainant i.e., from 8.7.2011 till the date of actual realization.    Moreover, as the deficiency of service-cum-unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd opposite Party should have caused much physical and financial hardship besides mental agony to the Complainant, he is entitled to some compensation.    Moreover, as the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service-cum-unfair trade practice on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party, he is entitled to costs of this complaint too.

10.     In the result, this Forum directs the 2^nd Opposite Party: a) to pay Rs.5,100/- (Rupees five thousand and one hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 8.7.2011 till the date of actual realization, and also to pay b) a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) and c) Costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month. 

          The case against the Opposite Parties 1 and 3 is dismissed.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 8^th day of October, 2014.

Sd/-                                  Sd-                                        Sd/-

President                          L. Member                                  Male Member

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

                                      -Nil-

Sd/-                                  Sd-                                        Sd/-

President                              L. Member                         Male Member