1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 03.11.2016 he purchased one Sony Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Sony M5 having IMEI No. 358129070927889 & Sl. No. 3116W20601094 and paid Rs. 20,000/- vide invoice no. 36 dated 03.11.2016 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is alleged that 9 months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed several defects and he did not get its utility.  Further it is alleged in the month of July, 2017 he approached the O.P.No.1 who after keeping the said mobile for about 20 days returned the handset with a reply that the mobile was rectified, but after two to three days, the said mobile showed the same defects.  That on approach to O.P.No.1 regarding the defects, the O.P.No.1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having manufacturing defect, thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset with 18% interest and to pay Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.

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 in shape of written version admitting the sale of the alleged mobile handset to the complainant has contended that complainant has handed over his mobile handset alleging defects to him for its repair, which was sent to the service center of the O.P.no.2 and after due repair, the same was returned to the complainant and thereafter the complainant never visited to his shop for further defects.  Thus denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. The O.P. No. 2 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the Complainant but denied all other facts contending that the alleged mobile handset was suffers from liquid damage and the same is out of warranty.  They have also contended that as per allegations of complaint regarding the defects, the alleged mobile handset was observed and found that the mobile handset

was brought to the service center in a liquid damage condition due to external cause due to the negligence of the complainant.Claiming documentary evidence from the complainant regarding the manufacturing defect of alleged mobile and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

4. Complainant has filed only the retail invoice to prove his submissions and no other parties to the present dispute have filed any documents in support of their contentions.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.

5. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of the alleged mobile handset to the Complainant by the O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Sony M5 having IMEI No. 358129070927889 & Sl. No. 3116W20601094 and consideration of Rs. 20,000/- vide invoice no. 36 dated 03.11.2016 alongwith warranty certificate and  Complainant filed document to that effect.  It is alleged that 9 months after its purchase, the said mobile handset showed several defects and he did not get its utility.  Further it is alleged in the month of July 2017 he approached the O.P.No.1 who after keeping the said mobile for about 20 days returned the handset after its repair.  The above submissions of complainant admitted by both the opposite parties in their respective counters.  Further allegation of the complainant is that after using the said mobile handset for two to three days, it exhibited the same problems as of previous one.  Whereas the O.P.No.2 contended that the said mobile handset was suffering from liquid damage at the time the complainant brought to their servicer center, but miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence to that effect and without any evidence, such plea of O.P. No. 2 cannot be accepted.
6. Further as per the counter version of the O.P.No.1, it is also established that the alleged mobile handset was sent to the service center of the O.P.No.2 and the same rectified and returned to the complainant.  But nowhere, the O.P.No.1 was raised his voice in his counter regarding the liquid damage of the alleged mobile handset.  Further, one question arise at this stage is had the alleged mobile handset was suffering from liquid damage, than how the service center of O.P.No.2 could not detected the same and rectified the mobile handset without charging any repairable charge from the complainant.  So, we think the contentions of O.P.No.2 does not contain any merit and only to save their skin, the O.P.No.2 intended to shift their liability on the complainant by asking for further documentary evidence from him, which is not tenable under law.

7. Further, at the time of hearing, the Complainant submitted that since there is no authorized service center of the O.P.No.2 in the present locality, as such he depended on the O.P.No.1 to avail proper service and it is the O.P.No.1 who can answer regarding the status of the alleged mobile handset, whereas, neither the O.P.No.1 nor the Ld. Counsel for the O.P.No.2 has raised objection to that effect.  Hence the versions of the complainant cannot be disbelieved.

8. Further it is observed that the O.P.No.2 without going through the document filed by the complainant has submitted their written version stating in para no. 3 that “after enjoying the handset for almost 11 and a half months, the complainant for the very first time approached the service center on 14.10.2017 raising an issue of No power & Touch Screen not responding”, which in our view is totally baseless and only to misguide the Forum, as the allegations of complainant is that “after 9 months of its purchase in the month of July, 2017, the mobile handset showed several defects and he approached to the O.P.No.1 for its repair” and versions of complainant is also admitted by the O.P.No.1 in his counter version who is the authorized retailer of the O.P.No.2.  Hence the contentions made in the written version of the O.P.No.2 contain no merit.

9. The defects in the alleged mobile handset occur during the warranty period, as such it is the duty of the O.Ps to provide better service to their genuine customer like the complainant, whereas the O.P.No.2 has indirectly intended to put pressure on the complainant to prove his allegations, and due to non provide of their best services, definitely the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and physical harassment, which compel him to seek his redress before the Fora by incurring some expenses, as such the O.P.No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant and the complainant is entitled for compensation and costs of litigation.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P.No.2 being the manufacturer is herewith directed to refund the costs of the alleged mobile handset of Rs. 20,000/- and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for not providing better service and to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

        Order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of August, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.