1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 14.07.2015 he purchased a Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. Samsung Galaxy Grand S4-G503H, IMEI No. 135714/07/050078/17 and paid Rs. 12,000/- vide invoice no. 43 dated 14.07.2015 alongwith warranty certificate and three month after its purchase, the handset showed some defects for which he did not get its utility.That in the month of January, 2016 he reported the defects of the mobile to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise, he handed over the said mobile to the O.P. No. 1 and after 7 days, the O.P. No. 1 returned the said mobile.Further the allegation of complainant is that after some days, the said mobile showed the same defects alognwith some additional defects, for which he again approached the O.P.No.1, who disclosed his inability to rectify the same.Thus, with other submissions, showing the deficiency in serviceand unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, complainant has filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile and Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from this Fora, the O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his written version admitting about the purchase of alleged handset by the complainant from him and contended that the complainant had handed over his alleged mobile handset for its repair to him and he (O.P.No.1) sent the said mobile to O.P.No.2 for its rectification and returned the same to the complainant, thereafter, the complainant never visited to him for any defects and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 represented through their authorized representative who appeared in this case, filed their counter denying their liabilities with the contentions that since the complainant has not filed any expert opinion report as required u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of the defects occurred in the alleged handset, as such there is no unfair trade practice on their part.  Further they have contended that the alleged products was purchased by the complainant after being satisfied with its performances, which was put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market and since the complainant has not approached them, as such denying their liabilities and with other contentions they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his allegations.  On the other hand, the O.Ps have not filed any single document in support of their contentions and also never challenged the documents filed by the complainant.
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. Samsung Galaxy Grand S4-G503H, IMEI No. 135714/07/050078/17 and paid Rs. 12,000/- vide invoice no. 43 dated 14.07.2015 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is also not disputed that three months after its purchase, the handset showed some defects, for which he approached the O.P.No. 1 for its repair and the said submissions of complainant has never challenged by the O.Ps., rather the O.P. No. 1, in his counter, has admitted that he has repaired the alleged mobile through the O.P.No.2.  But the O.P. No. 2 strictly challenged the said facts contending that neither the Complainant nor the O.P. No. 1 have intimated about the said defects of the alleged mobile handset to them, as such they are not aware of any defect occurred in the alleged mobile handset, otherwise they could have rectified the defects found out by the Complainant.
    
6. Further at the time of hearing, the O.P. No. 1 was absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the O.P. No. 2 contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of O.P. No. 2 was taken into consideration.  However, the O.P. No. 2 has admitted that the alleged product in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold by the O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant. The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after some days of receipt the said mobile from the O.P.No.1, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.Though the O.P. No. 2 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of Complainant is well established.Further, absence of O.P. No. 1 and his non participate in the hearing makes the allegations of Complainant strong and vital.
    
7. Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period, though the alleged mobile handset was used for about three months, and as per counter version of the O.P.No.1 that the defects in the alleged mobile handset was rectified by the O.P. No. 1 through O.P.No.2, but the said view taken by the O.P.No.1 is strongly challenged by the O.P. No. 2 contending that they have never received any information regarding the defect of the alleged mobile from the O.P.No.1.  As such we feel, the alleged mobile handset was repaired by the O.P.No.1 through the local technicians but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.2, for which, the alleged handset reiterated its original defects alongwith some additional defects, and such type of practice adopted by O.P.No.1 has clearly established the deficiency in service on his part.
    
8. We feel, had the O.P.No.1 rectified the defects in the alleged handset through the authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.2, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified.  Further it was the duty of O.P.No. 1 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.2 for providing better service to their genuine customer.  In the present case, since there is no authorized service center in the present locality at the time of occurrence, the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No.2 from the O.P.No.1 must have depended on the O.P.No.1 to avail proper service. But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No.1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of the selling the products, and carry out the defects as per his own choice by the help of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permitted in the eye of law.
    
9. Further lying the said mobile handset for about two years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
    
10. Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the Complainant, as the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs 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 directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. of Rs. 12,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 10 % per annum and the O.P.No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order.  Further the complainant is directed to return the alleged defective mobile handset to the concerned person of the O.P.No. 2 at the time of complying the above order by the O.P. No.2.