1.   Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for a direction to replace the defective hand set with a new one and compensation.

     2.The case of the complainant is that  he had purchased a Samsung hand set  vide Model No.SM-C900 from the O.PNo.1  on dtd.14.7.2017 for a consideration of Rs.31,990/-.The O.P.No.1 handed over the said set along with an invoice  dtd. 14.7.2017 with a warranty card. After some days of purchase the said hand set found defect and not able to provide service and always showed i.e. No network. The complainant contacted with the O.P No.1 and informed about the defect of hand set. The O .PNo.1 instructed the complainant to hand over the said hand set to the nearest servicing center for its repairing. Thereafter the complainant had been to the  Sambalpur  to the shop  of the  O.P.No.3  and shows the defective hand set and the O.PNo.3 told the complainant to  deposit the hand set  in  Service center  and it will take time for its repairing. The complainant handed over the said set to the O.P No.3 on 2.10.2017 and after one month the O.PNo3 returned the defective hand set with repairing. After such repair the hand set functioned about 3 to 4 days again showed the defects and stated the same shows no network. The complainant sustained with financial loss due to the defect of the mobile and could not cooperate his business .Thereafter the complainant contacted with O.P.No1 and also theO.P.No3 but they remained silent. The said hand set was defective within the warranty period. As the O.P. could not take any steps for exchange of defective hand set, the complainant filed this case before this forum for a direction to give a new hand set with a same model and compensation.

     3. After being noticed the O.P. No.2 only filed written statement in this case. The case of the O.P No2. is that the case is not maintainable under law and facts and the case does not come within the purview of C.P.Act .There is neither manufacture defect in question nor defect in service against the O.P.s All the allegation made by the complainant is denied by the O.P.The O.P. role is limited up to the product quality and warranty benefit of the mobile in question. This mobile is a well-known product   in market and carries a warranty against any manufacturing in mobile and it shall be repaired free of  cost up to one year from the date of purchase. This warranty provided by the manufacturer   under certain terms and condition which must be followed by the complainant. This opposite party had rectified the hand set under the terms and warranty .The mobile was handed over to the complainant after through check .There is neither any defect in mobile nor in deficiency of service on the part of the answering O.P.s. So the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case. Though notice has been sent to the O.P.no.1 and 3 they did not appear in this case and became set ex-parte.

     4. During the course hearing the complainant has given much stress on the receipt of retail invoice for purchase of mobile set for Rs.31,900/- on dtd.14.7.2017 alongwith warranty card and  also job sheet  dtd. 2.10.2017 showing the repair of the mobile.

    5.The point for determination in this case whether the complainant is a  consumer against the O.P., whether the O.P. caused  deficiency of service and  unfair trade practice against the complainant .

    6.The complainant had purchased the mobile had set on payment of  Rs 31,900/- dtd, on 14.7.2017 and given the invoice to the complainant on the such purchase. As such the complainant is a consumer against the O.P.s.The complainant purchased the mobile  on 14.7.2017 and the it is was found defective  and the complainant had  been to the authorized service center on 2.10.2017 for its repairing and during the warranty period it was found defective  .The O.P. also admits  that   they have rectified the  defect in the   hand set within the warranty period and the mobile was delivered to the complainant .After taking back  the mobile under his  through check  the mobile set was again found defective and the O.P. could not take any steps which forced the complainant   to filed this case .There is no dispute between the parties that  the complainant has purchased the mobile and during the warranty period  the mobile set was found defective  and when the complainant  had been to the  O.P.  to rectify the defect  and the O.P remained silent .

 Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant documents filed by him and submission made by the O.P.No.2 we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P.No.2 to replace the mobile set with a new one with free from defect. The O.P.No.2 is further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only    to the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation. The case against the O.P No.1 and 3 is dismissed without cost.

        Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 4th day of

December, 2018.