1. The brief fact of the case of Complainant is that on 04.10.2016 he purchased one Lenovo Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Lenovo K4 Note, Model – A7010a48, IMEI No. 860933036540038 and S_IMEI No. 860933036540046 and paid Rs. 11,800/- vide retail invoice no. 66 dated 04.10.2016 alongwith warranty certificate card.  It is alleged that after 9 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning for which he did not get its utility, hence on June, 2017 he 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 approached 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 showing the 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 either to replace the same model defect free handset or to refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs. 11,800/- and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation 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 admitting the sale of the alleged mobile handset to the Complainant and also admitted about the service provided by him stating that after receiving the said mobile handset from the Complainant, he sent to the 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 though not appeared before the Fora, but sent their counter by post duly signed and sealed by him admitting the service provided by them.  It is contented by him that the alleged mobile handset was received at their service center for twice i.e. on 22.05.2017 vide job sheet no. SOIN0631721705220022 showing the defect of PCB and on 19.06.2017 vide job sheet no. SOIN1431721706190199 showing the defect of “charging / Battery Issue”.  Further they have contended that soon after receipt of the said mobile handset, they have attended the defects and rectified the same without any delay.  Thus, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Whereas, the O.P. No. 3, who is the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset did not appear before this Fora after receiving the notice, nor they choose to file their counter nor participated in the hearing inspite of repeated adjournments given to them keeping in view of natural justice.  As such we lost opportunities to hear from them. 
    
5. Except Complainant no other parties to the present disputes, 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 documents filed by the Complainant remained unchallenged.  Perused the documents and materials available in the record.
    
6. 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. Lenovo K4 Note, Model – A7010a48, IMEI No. 860933036540038 and S_IMEI No. 860933036540046 and paid Rs. 11,800/- vide retail invoice no. 66 dated 04.10.2016 alongwith warranty certificate and Complainant has filed documents to that effect.  It is also alleged by the Complainant that after 9 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile handset showed some defects in its functioning for which he did not get its utility, hence on June, 2017 he 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, the allegations of Complainant is that after use the same for some days, the said mobile handset showed the same defects alongwith some additional defects and on approached to the O.P. No.1, who expressed his inability to rectify the defects and disclosed that the mobile handset was having manufacturing defects.Since the O.P. No.2 did not appear at the time of hearing, we lost opportunities to hear from him so also to come to a conclusion that whether the alleged mobile handset was having any defects as alleged by the Complainant.Though the O.P. No. 2 filed their counter challenging the versions of Complainant, did not produce any cogent evident regarding to the effect that the alleged mobile handset suffers from liquid damage.Further it is admitted by the O.P. No.2 that they have repaired the said mobile for two times i.e. on 22.05.2017 vide job sheet no. SOIN0631721705220022 showing the defect of PCB and on 19.06.2017 vide job sheet no. SOIN1431721706190199 showing the defect of “charging / Battery Issue”, which prima facie evident that the alleged mobile handset was having requirements of major repairs. Further absence of O.P.No. 3 made it clear that they have nothing to say in this regard.

7. 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 two times for its repair, since the O.P.No.3 did not choose to contradict the versions of the Complainant, being silent over the matter, as such averments made by the Complainant remained unchallenged on their part.  Further, the versions of O.P.No.2 in their counter is not tallied with the job sheet vide no. SOIN631721706140017 issued by them which is filed by the Complainant, hence we feel that the O.P.No.2 have properly not gone through the job sheet issued by them.The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after its first repair made by the O.P.No.1, he found some additional defects including the previous defects, for which on June 2017 he deposited the said mobile with the O.P.No.1, who after its inspection returned the handset with suggesting as a manufacturing defect, 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, so also the absence of the O.P.No.3 makes the averments of Complainant strong and vital.

8. 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. 2 in a proper manner, 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. 2 to provide his best services to his genuine customer i.e. Complainant, and had the O.P. No.2 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 & 2 is clearly established the principle of deficiency in service.  Though the submissions of Complainant was challenged by the O.P.No.2 contending that the mobile handset is not suffers from any manufacturing defect, which seems that O.P.NO.2 intended to strictly push the burden of proof on the Complainant but miserably failed to make any contradiction to the effect that of existence of any defects. 

9. We feel, had the O.P. No.2 rectified the alleged defects occurred in the mobile handset in a proper manner, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified, and that the Complainant would not have suffered.  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 & 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 in the eye of law.
    
10. Further lying the said mobile handset for a period about 1 year 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 he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- 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. 3 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. Rs. 11,800/- 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 and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of May, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.

        Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

   Member                                                                    President (I/c)