This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 21/11/2016 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Siliguri in reference to CC/68/S/2013. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant/complainant had purchased a mobile handset from respondent no. 1 M/s. Balaji Communication at Siliguri at the price of Rs. 3,800/-. On the next date of such purchase the handset was found disturbing as the LCD of the said handset stopped working. He, then, approached the seller Balaji Communication for replacement and Balaji Communication then replaced with a new one by same model. The second mobile handset also become defective within a couple of days and he again approached the OP no. 1 Balaji Communication for replacing. Then the OP no. 1 Balaji Communication asked him to make a contact with OP no. 3 Ganapati Cellular. Ganapati Cellular who after examination of the handset asked the complainant/appellant to deposit Rs. 1,200/- for the cost of repairing the defect though the handset was started disfunctionning within warranty period and for that reason, the complainant/appellant was not agreed to deposit Rs. 1,200/- as a result, he could not obtain the service of the said mobile handset in spite of paying the full amount of the price of the handset. So, he communicated with the seller/dealer and manufacturer of the said mobile set for redressal of his grievances but his redressal was not sorted out. So, he registered the consumer complaint against the seller/manufacturer and service centre that is OP no. 1 to 3. All the Opposite parties to that case received the notice in due course but they did not contest the case. Ld. Forum after hearing the complainant and on the basis of the documentary evidence produced before the Forum has delivered the impugned judgment. The Forum has allowed the consumer complaint in favour of the complainant ex parte against the OP no. 1 Balaji Communication but dismissed the case against OP no. 2 and 3 though they have also not contested the case.  

            Being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the ground that Ld. Forum has no basis to dismiss the case against OP no. 2 and 3 and the finding and decision of the Ld. Forum is full of error and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered in due time before the Hon’ble State Commission, Kolkata Bench where the notice upon the respondent no. 1 to 3 who happened to be the OP no. 1 to 3 of the consumer case who in spite of receiving notice did not contest the appeal except respondennt no. 2 who had appeared before the Hon’ble Commission at Kolkata Bench through Ld. Advocate. But, subsequently, the respondent no. 2 also has disappeared from this case and did not contest the case before this Commission after its reassignment. Accordingly, the appeal was heard only in presence of the Ld. Advocate of the appellant.

                                                 DECISIONS WITH REASONS

            After hearing the Ld. Advocate of the appellant and after going through the tax invoice furnished by the appellant/complainant, it appears to us that he had purchased a mobile handset of Videocon 1654 on 18/05/2011. The warranty period as per terms and conditions having one-year manufacture warranty. Balaji Communication, the seller of the mobile handset has sold out the same who was authorized to sell the mobile handset of Videocon while the mobile set was started disfunctionning since the next date of purchasing the first one was replaced by the seller and the replaced mobile set also started disfunctionning and then complainant had to communicate the seller and authorized service centre to remove the technical manufacturing defects of the same free of cost as the defects was arisen within the warranty period but the service centre Ganapati Cellular after ignoring the warranty/guarantee charged Rs. 1,200 for repairment of the defects which was not agreed on the part of the complainant. Then, he communicated through letter to all concerned parties regarding the said mobile handset including the manufacturer and asking them to replace it within 7 days. But, in spite of the said letter the OP no. 1 to 3 remained silent and the problem of complainant/appellant could not be sorted out. So, he registered the consumer complaint. The case was heard ex parte against all the three opposite parties. But unfortunately, Ld. Forum has passed the decree against OP no. 1 while the case was dismissed ex parte against OP no. 2 and 3 though there was no reason of the dismissal of the case to the OP no. 2 and 3.

            At the time of argument Ld. Advocate mentioned if the OP no. 2 and 3 are not become liable to carry out the award passed in favour of the complainant against OP no. 1it becomes inexecutable as because OP no. 1 has already shifted his business and his whereabouts are unknown to him. After going through the merit of the case and after perusing the judgment of the Ld. Forum it appears to this Commission that Ld. Forum had the opportunity to cast the liability upon the OP no. 1 and 3 jointly and severally, so that, the complainant could get adequate compensation for the harassment he has suffered. In our view, this judgment of the Ld. Forum requires to be interfered in this appeal and it should be modified to give the award executable.

                                                           Hence it is ordered: -

            That the appeal be and the same is allowed ex parte against all the respondent nos. 1 to 3. The order of the Ld. Forum of Siliguri dated 21/11/2016 in reference to CC No. 68/5/2013 is hereby modified to the extent that the award delivered in favour of the complainant against OP no. 1 to be construed as the award against all OP nos. 1 to 3 and all the OP nos. 1 to 3 of the case are jointly and severally liable to pay the award money to the complainant within a stipulated period mentioned in the award itself. The remaining portion of the order remains the same.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.