O R D E R

Subhash Gupta, Member

The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased HTC 501 mobile phone from OP-2 on 25.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.14,222/- (Rs.1777.75 as Vat charges).  Although it is alleged in the complaint that the said handset was giving trouble since 18.01.2014 but the only jobsheet filed by the complainant is dated 25.06.2014.  In the complaint the complainant has given various dates for deposition of the handset with the service centre but no jobsheet have been filed to substantiate the same.  The complainant has alleged that the handset has not been handed over to him so far and there is deficiency in service.  The complainant has also alleged manufacturing defect in the handset.

2.     Notice of the complaint was issued to both the O.Ps.  O.P-1 has filed the written statement and none appeared on behalf of O.P-2 throughout the proceedings.  O.P-1 in the written statement has submitted that it is only the service provider of O.P-2 and his duty is only to collect the faulty phone from the consumer and send it to the authorized service centre of O.P-2.  It is further pleaded in the complaint that he has provided efficient and satisfactory services and has nothing to do with the faulty mobile phone purchased by the complainant from O.P-2.  

3.     The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit as evidence, cash memo and one jobsheet dated 26.06.2014.  The complainant has also filed copies of various emails exchanged between the complainant and O.P-2.  From the emails dated 30.12.2014, 23.01.2015 and 04.08.2015 it is apparent that O.P-2 has offered 1-1 replacement of device.  However, O.P-2 has informed the complainant that it will not be able to provide a model upgrade.  The complainant vides email dated 16.01.2015 refused to settle the offer given by the O.P-2.  From these emails it is crystal clear that O.P-2 was ready and willing to replace the 1-1 replacement device in order to settle the litigation.  But the complainant wanted an upgrade model with warranty.  We have carefully considered all the documents placed on record and in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances the interest of justice would be met if O.P-2 is directed for replacement of 1-1 device to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order.  The complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation for harassment which shall also include cost of litigation.  Ordered accordingly. 

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

         Announced this 26^th day of February, 2016.                                     

   (K.S. MOHI)                 (SUBHASH GUPTA)                      (SHAHINA)

     President                          Member                                    Member