1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 06.01.2017 she purchased one HTC mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. HTC Desire 628 having IMEI No. 357292075082265 and Sl. No. 3R7C1671012842 vide invoice no. 06 dated 06.01.2017 for consideration of Rs. 13,400/- alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that after 9 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning for which she did not get its utility, hence on September, 2017 she deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P. No. 1, who after keeping the said mobile handset for about 30 days returned the same with a false belief of being repaired.  Further, it is alleged that after use the same for some days, the said mobile handset showed the same defects alongwith some additional defects and on approach to the O.P. No.1, who expressed his inability to rectify the defects and disclosed that the mobile handset was having manufacturing defects.  Thus alleging the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, complainant has filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs. 13,400/- and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to her.

2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice of this Fora, appeared in this case and filed his counter admitting the sale of the alleged mobile handset to the complainant and the service provided by him,  have stated that after receiving the said mobile handset from the complainant, he sent to the authorized service center of O.P.No.2 for its repair and after being repaired, he handed over the mobile handset to the complainant and  thereafter the complainant never visited to his shop, as such denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 & 3 though received the notices from the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case nor filed their respective counters nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated adjournments were given to them keeping in view of natural justice for their submissions, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations of complainant made against them became unrebuttal. 

4. Except complainant no other parties to the present dispute, have filed any documents.  Heard from the complainant as well as from the O.P.No. 1.  Rest Opp. Parties are absent at the time of hearing, as such the document filed by the complainant remained unchallenged.  Perused the record and material documents available therein.  
    
5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the alleged mobile handset by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. HTC Desire 628 having IMEI No. 357292075082265 and Sl. No. 3R7C1671012842 vide invoice no. 06 dated 06.01.2017 for consideration of Rs. 13,400/- alongwith warranty certificate and complainant has filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that after 9 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning for which she did not get its utility, hence on September, 2017 she deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P. No. 1, who after keeping the said mobile handset for about 30 days returned the same with a belief of being repaired.  The said version of complainant is admitted by the O.P.No.1 in his counter version.  Further, the allegations of complainant is that after using the said mobile for some days, the said mobile showed the previous defects alongwith some additional defects and on approach to the O.P. No.1, who expressed his inability to rectify the defects and disclosed that the mobile handset was having manufacturing defect.  Since the O.P. No.2 & 3 did not appear throughout the proceeding, we lost opportunities to hear from them so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was having any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.Though the O.P. No. 1 filed his counter challenging the versions of complainant, but did not produce any cogent evident regarding to the effect that the complainant has never visited to his shop for further complaint, rather the O.P. No. 1 has admitted that he has repaired the said mobile handset through the service center of the O.P.No.2.Further absence of O.P.No. 2 & 3 made it clear that they have nothing to say in this regard.

6. Further, at the time of hearing, the O.P.No.1 did not challenge the versions of complainant rather he admitted that the complainant has brought the alleged mobile handset for its repair.  Since the O.P.No.2 did not choose to contradict the versions of the complainant and became silent over the matter, as such averments made by the complainant remained unchallenged on their part. 

7. The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after its first repair made by the O.P.No.1, she found some additional defects including the previous defects, for which she approached the O.P.No.1, who after its inspection returned the handset with suggesting as a manufacturing defect, was well corroborated by her at the time of hearing.  Though the O.P.No.2 & 3 have received the notice from the Fora but did not choose to appear in the case nor filed their counter version to make it contradict, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also the absence of the O.P.No. 2 & 3 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.

8. Further at the time of hearing, it is also averred by the complainant that due to unfair trade practice followed by the O.P. No.1 she could not get the utility of the alleged mobile handset and the handset is lying dead.  From the record, it is ascertained that the O.P. No.1 though have filed his counter stating that he has sent the alleged mobile handset to the O.P. No. 2 for rectification of defects, but miserably failed to   Produce any documentary evidences to that effect, hence the versions of O.P.No.1 is not believable at this stage.And since the O.P.No.2 & 3 did not choose to appear in this case, we lost opportunities to ascertain the exact defects of the alleged mobile handset.

9. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period though the mobile handset was used for 9 months, which was supposed to be repaired by the O.P. No. 1 through the authorized service center and whereas without providing his best service, the O.P.No.1 only suggested that the alleged mobile handset is having manufacturing defect, which is not permissible in the eye of law.  As, it is the first and foremost duty of the O.P. No. 1 to provide his best services to his genuine customer i.e. Complainant as the O.P.No.2 is not having any authorized service center in the present locality, and had the O.P. No.1 provided the service in proper manner towards repair of the alleged mobile handset than the defects in the mobile handset could have easily rectified and the complainant would not have suffered and in our view, such type of practice adopted by the O.P. No. 1 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.

10. Further it was the duty of O.P.No.1 that on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No. 2 & 3 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  But without providing better service to his customer, the O.P.No.1 left the complainant in a mid-way where the complainant would not get any source to sort out the problems, which is not permissible as per law.  Further since there is no document to show the existence of principal to principal relationship between the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.1, it is the prime duty of the O.P.No.2 to check over such matter and day to day activity of the upgradration of their service strategy in the market, but without doing so, the O.P. No.2 kept silent over the matter, which attract the principle of unfair trade practice. Further lying the said mobile handset for a period about 1 year and eight months without any use, in our view, is of no use.

11. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better and proper service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the complainant, as the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment, for which she was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering her sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No. 2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 13,400/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of August, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.