1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he handed over his Micromax X-351 handset for repair on 21.01.2015 to OP.2 under warranty, which is the authorized service centre of Micromax Company.  The OP-2 received the set and granted job sheet and the complainant received message from BW-MMX SER on 28.1.2015 to receive back the repaired handset from OP.2 but on repeated approach from 29.01.2015, the OP.2 did not return the set. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.2, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.2 to return the repaired set and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to file counter. The OP No.3 filed counter denying any knowledge regarding handing over of handset to OP.2 by the complainant for repair.  It is submitted that the Ops 1 & 2 are not informing the OP.3 regarding sale of handset and deposit of any defective handset for repair respectively and in the present case the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of OP.3.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant has filed copy of money receipt issued by OP.1 while purchasing the same along with service job sheet issued by OP.2 in respect of receipt of the handset for repair on 21.01.2015. The allegation of the complainant is that he deposited his handset on 21.01.15 with the OP-2 for repair under warranty and received message from BW-MMX SER on 28.01.2015 to receive back the repaired handset but on repeated approach the OP.2 is not returning the handset.  When the handset is repaired and the complainant received message to take back his repaired handset, non return of the handset by repairer is intentional in order to harass the complainant.  Due to non participation of OP.2 in spite of valid notice in this case, the allegations against OP.2 remained unchallenged and hence it can be easily concluded that the OP.2 with ill intention has retained the repaired handset of the complainant which in our opinion amount to deficiency in service.

5.                     The complainant submitted that before few days of hearing of this case, surprisingly the OP.2 has returned the set to the complainant in unrepaired condition stating that the handset could not be repaired as it bears some major defects.  The complainant has also handed over the defect set to the A/R for the OP.3 for refund of its cost and the A/R from OP.3 has received the set in the Forum.   Perhaps after repair the handset while at the hands of Ops again developed problems but non refund of handset is a mistake on the part of OP.2.

6.                     Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset at Rs.1700/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 25.7.2014.  Further due to such inaction of the OP.2 the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will be just and proper to be paid by OP.2. 

5.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.1700/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 25.7.2014 and the OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the OP.2 shall pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.2000/- from the date of this order.

(to dict.)