1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one HTC mobile handset model HTC Desire 628 Dual SIM, IMEI No.357292076118606 from OP.1 for Rs.14, 000/- vide Invoice No.2191 dt.14.12.2016 with one year warranty.  It is submitted that soon after the handset was put into use, it was found hang problem in the handset and on approach, the OP.1 suggested charging battery properly but in spite of efforts, the hang problem persisted.  On 02.02.2017 the complainant handed over the set to OP.1 for repair who in turn demanded Rs.3000/- to send the handset to OP.2 and since then the complainant is regularly approaching the OP.1 to get return of his handset.  Finally on 25.03.2017 the OP.1 handed over a job sheet vide No.BBI007-0004684 dt.23.3.2017 issued by OP.2 and demanded Rs.6000/- towards repair of the handset as the set has become bend which is out of warranty.  It is submitted that from that date the handset is with OP.2 and 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.14, 000/- towards the cost of the handset and to refund Rs.3000/- taken by OP.1 for repair with interest @ 12% p.a. and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  Hence the matter was heard from the A/R for the complainant in absence of the Ops for orders on merit basing upon the materials available on record.  We have also carefully gone through the documents on record.  The complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case.

3.                     In this case, purchase of HTC handset Model HTC Desire 628 Dual SIM, IMEI No.357292076118606 from OP.1 by the complainant is supported by Invoice No.2191 dt.14.12.2016 for Rs.14, 000/-.  The complainant stated that for continuous hang problem, he handed over the set to OP.1 on 02.2.2017 and paid Rs.3000/- on demand towards repair of the set at ASC, Berhampur but the OP.1 handed over a job sheet on 25.3.2017 issued by OP.2 on 23.3.2017 stating that the handset has become bend with hang problem.  The OP.1 also demanded Rs.6000/- towards repair of the handset.

4.                     The case of the complainant is that he handed over the handset to OP.1 with complaint “set hang” on 02.2.2017 who sent the same to ASC (OP.2) at Berhampur.  The OP.2 after 50 days has sent job sheet dt.23.3.2017 stating that the handset is bending and as such out of warranty case.  For repair, the OP.1 demanded Rs.6000/- and from that date, the handset is with the OP.2.

5.                     In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from them.  In the instant case, the defective handset received by OP.1 is an admitted fact.  While receiving the handset, the OP.1 was duty bound to grant receipt in token of acknowledgement with details of defect noticed or raised by the complainant.  Had a receipt issued by OP.1 while receiving the handset, the doubt would have been cleared.  Now it is not clear, whether the handset suffered bend before handing it over to OP.1 by the complainant.  So, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the complainant.  It can also be presumed that the handset in question might have suffered bend while in transit to Berhampur or may it be at either end of the Ops.  Hence it cannot be concluded that the handset was bend when received by OP.1.  In the present condition of handset, it cannot be used by the complainant and the Ops are liable for the damages occurred to the handset.  As such the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.14, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.12.2016 as the set was damaged by the Ops 1 & 2 within warranty period.  Further due to damage of the handset, the complainant could not use the same for which he must have suffered some mental agony and also has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Hence the complainant is entitled for some compensation and considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.14, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.12.2016 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  The OP.3 may recover the defective set from OP.2 if it so like.

(to dict.)