Presented by Miss B.L.Dora, Member. <br /> In this case, the Complaint petition reflects that, the Complainant has purchased one 3110 model Nokia Mobile Phone bearing IMEI No. 354862028265978 and Battery No. 067400417535, P284E 10898191 from the Opposite Party No.3(three) on payment of Rs. 4600/-(Rupees four thousand six hundred)only on Dt.03/09/2008. The Opposite Party No.1(one) is the manufacturer of Nokia Mobile Phone having business through out the country by appointing dealers. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the local service station and Opposite Party No.3(three) is the dealer of the Opposite Party No.1(one) at Bargarh.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) has issued a warranty of free service for twelve months from the date of purchase of the said mobile phone. After using the mobile three to four months, the keypad of it became locked while in talking mode for which the Complainant lodged complain before the Opposite Party No.2(two) who in turn retained the mobile for some days and returned it standing repaired the defect.<br /> <br /> But thereafter the same defect continued for which the Complainant has lodged complain before the Opposite Party No.2(two) who told about the necessity to send it to the higher authorities for repair. So the Complainant has handed over the said mobile to the Opposite Party No.2(two) against which the said Opposite Party issued a service job sheet on Dt. 22/06/2009 and assured to return the mobile after complete repair within reasonable time.<br /> <br /> Then after several approach, for more than a month the said mobile was returned on assurance of complete repair of it. Then also the same defect occurred after one month in the mobile and on complain the Opposite Party No.2(two) said that the mobile cannot be repaired at all. By knowing about this manufacturing defect, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2(two) for it's replacement but the Opposite Party No.2(two) with out recommending for replacement asked the Complainant to deposit of the mobile for sending of it to the higher service station for further repairing. The Complainant did not prefer it as for that the warranty period will expire in this process.<br /> <br /> The defect occurred in the said mobile is a manufacturing one about which the Complainant made aware to the Opposite Parties within the warranty period, which was not replaced or rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time, amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the customer. Due to these act and attitude of the Opposite Parties and intentioned delay to rectify the defect, the Complainant has not only suffered mentally but also got financial loss and physical harassment.<br /> <br /> Hence the Complainant prays for to compensate the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay the Complainant Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only for mental and financial harassment and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses along with pendentelite and future interest besides replacement of the mobile with a new one or tis value. In order to strengthen his case, the Complainant has filed the documents like:- (1) Money receipt No. 455 Dt, 03/09/2008 issued by the Opposite Party No.3(three), (2) Copy of service job sheet No. W Dt. 22/06/2009 issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two), (3) Copy of warranty given by the Opposite Party No.1(one) etc..<br /> <br /> In response to this the Opposite Party No.3(three) has filed his version stating that the Opposite Party No.3(three) is not a dealer of Opposite Party No.1(one) but only sells certain type of cell phones, cover etc. for maintenance of his family. No money receipt was issued to the Complainant except an invoice and the Complainant is bound by its term and conditions. The Complainant has purchased the said mobile in proper condition and used it for a long period. Generally defect occurs in mobile phones by mis-handling of pin lock etc. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is not liable in every way for the defect or deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) received notice but failed to appear before the Forum and has been set ex-parte in this case.<br /> <br /> Gone through the documents and heard from the counsels for the parties concerned, it is obvious that the said phone has been purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.3(three). The service job sheet filed by the Complainant telling about the defect in keypad. There is no documentary evidence filed by the Opposite Party No.3(three) that the Complainant has purchased the mobile in proper condition in which there is no manufacturing defect at all.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) has not contested in this case to counter that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile set or he has returned the said handset to the Complainant after complete repair. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has not filed his version and the case is posted for hearing. The Opposite Parties are failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum that there is no manufacturing defect in the said phone.<br /> <br /> Hence, the Opposite Parties are negligent in duty and deficient in providing proper service to the consumer. In this circumstances, the complaint petition is allowed.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, handover the new mobile hand set of the same model and brand in place of defective mobile hand set to the Complainant with Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only from compensation to mental agony and litigation within thirty days hence, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent)interest per annum till the actual payment.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is directed to return back the defective mobile hand set to the Opposite Parties after receiving of new mobile hand set immediately.<br /> <br /> The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.