1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Mobile handset model No. Q 332, IMEI No.911443901399949/911443901849943 for Rs.5200/- vide Retail Invoice No.8176 dt.19.01.2016 from OP.1 but after 5 days of its use all the functions of the handset slowed down, hanged and did not function properly for which he as per advice of OP.1 handed over the set on 25.1.2016 to OP.2 to make arrangement for replacement of the set with a new one.  It is submitted that after a brief repair the OP.2 returned the handset then and there assuring that the defects would not come again but the same problems returned on the next date of the repair.  As 26^th was Republic Day, the complainant on 27.1.2016 approached the OP.2 and narrated the problems and requested him to prepare DAO for replacement of the set by the dealer as it was one week old but the OP replied that they can issue DAO for replacement only on or before 7^th day of purchase of the set.  It is further submitted that on 25.1.2016, he had approached the OP.2 for replacement of the set but the OP did not agree stating that the faults are minor and received the set for needful action at their end but after 2 days same fault noticed and on request the OP did not agree to issue DAO.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.5200/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.23, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in this proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 though entered his appearance through his A/R, neither filed counter nor participated in the hearing.

3.                     The OP No.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant contending that it has no knowledge about the averments made in the complaint petition and the Ops 1 & 2 have never intimated the allegations made in the complaint petition to OP No.3.  Denying any defect in the handset sold to the complainant, the OP contended that the complainant has not furnished any expert report to show that the handset is a defect one.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

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

4.                     In this case the complainant stated that he purchased a Micromax handset model Q 332 for Rs.5200/- vide Invoice No. 8176 dt.19.1.2016 from OP.1 being manufactured by OP.3 duly supported by invoice granted by OP.1.  The complainant stated that  after 5 days of its use all the functions of the handset slowed down, hanged and did not function properly for which the complainant as per advice of the dealer handed over the set on 25.1.2016 to OP No.2 to make arrangements for replacement of the set with a new one.  It is submitted that after a brief repair the OP.2 returned the handset then and there assuring that the defects would not come again but the same problems returned on the next date of the repair.  As 26^th was Republic Day, the complainant on 27.1.2016 approached the OP.2 and narrated the problems and requested him to prepare the DAO for replacement of the set by the dealer as it was one week old but the OP issued a job sheet and replied that they can issue DAO for replacement only on or before 7^th day of purchase of the set.    Till date the handset is lying with OP.2 unprepared.

5.                     The OP No.3 in his counter stated that it has no knowledge about the sale and repair of the alleged set by Ops 1 & 2 respectively as none of them has informed about the facts.  The OP further stated that no expert opinion has been filed in this case in order to prove that the set suffered manufacturing defect.  While considering both the issues, it was ascertained that the OP.1 is the authorized retail outlet and the OP No.2 is the authorized service Centre of OP.3.  It is the duty of Ops to ensure connectivity between them regarding any transaction or service matters of their products.  If OP.3 has no interest to know all those things then it can be said that the OP.3 is adopting “take it and leave it” tactics in his business.

6.                     Further the OP.3 stated that the complainant has not furnished any expert report in order to prove that the product has got some manufacturing defect.  In this connection it can be said that the OP.2 is the ASC of OP.3, armed with experts.  When the OP.2, known as experts duly recognized by OP.3 declined to prepare DAO within 5 days of purchase of the set, proved to be manufacturing defect, in our opinion, no further expert is required to opine on the alleged defects in the handset.

7.                     In absence of counter and participation of Ops 1 & 2 we lost opportunity to know anything from them and as such the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Therefore, it can be concluded that in spite of  request of the complainant, the OP.2 did not prepare DAO for replacement of the handset suffering manufacturing defect within 5 days of its purchase, which in our opinion amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  It was ascertained that the complainant could not use the set due to such manufacturing defects and in our opinion; he is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase.  It is seen that the defective handset is with OP. No.2 and all accessories of the handset have been received by the A/R for OP.3 from the complainant at the time of hearing of this case. Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for the fault of OP.2 for which he is 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 to be borne by the OP No.2 will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost and the OP No.3 is to refund Rs.5200/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.01.2016 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  The OP.3 is further directed to collect the defective handset from OP No.2.

(to dict.)