The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the North India Top Company Private Limited, Being represented through its Authorised Signatory, Haryana, O.P No.2 is the Spice Retail Limited, Being represented through its Authorised Signatory, Noida, Uttar Pradesh and O.P No.3 is the Jay Jagannath Enterprises, The Authorised Service Centre, For Spice Retail Limited, Being represented through its Owner- cum-the Proprietor, Fandi Chhak, Balasore.

                    2. Shorn of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased one spice dual SIM dual Core Android phone-Mi506-white on 11.11.2014 along with user manual, warranty card and a list of Authorised Service Centres from the O.P No.1 on payment of a sum of Rs.5,499/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four hundred ninety nine) only and obtained a retail invoice dt.08.11.2014 vide Order dt.07.11.2014 made by the Complainant and received through Courier at Balasore. The warranty for the said mobile is 12 months from the date of purchase, but after some days of purchase, the mobile suffered from inherent manufacturing defects such as speaking LCD was blinking during call time LCD flickering and also not functioning properly. Thus, the Complainant put forth his genuine grievances in alternate means before the Officials of Spice Retail Limited and as per advice of O.P No.2, the Complainant handed over the alleged mobile set to O.P No.3 (Authorised Service Centre of O.P No.2) on 31.07.2015 and obtained a job card thereof. Accordingly, the Complainant received the same set from O.P No.3, duly rectified as informed by O.P No.3. Again, the mobile set suffered from same problem as mentioned earlier, thus the Complainant physically handed over the set to O.P No.3 on 07.09.2015, but till date the O.P No.3 has not taken any steps for eradication of defects in the said mobile and the same set is either with O.P No.3 or O.P No.2 till date. Despite repeated request at regular intervals made by the Complainant before the O.Ps, but they didn't pay any heed to it, causing deficiency-in-service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps to the Complainant. The Complainant had also served legal notices to the O.Ps on 29.10.2015 in this regard. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of defective mobile set along with compensation and litigation cost.    

                     3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.Ps, but they neither appeared nor filed their written version. So, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.

                    4. In view of the above averments of the Complainant in order to substantiate his claim, he has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the mobile set and on use, when it was found defective after some days and when it was within the warranty period of 12 months, initially it was repaired, but the same defect remained. On subsequent handing over to O.P No.3 for repair who neither repaired nor refunded the mobile set, for which after several approach when the Complainant failed to get relief, he approached this Forum for relief. The entire materials as placed by the Complainant remained unchallenged due to non-contest of the case by the O.Ps as they were set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. We also found no reasonable ground to disbelieve the plea submitted by the Complainant.     

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of the entire materials available in the case record and considering the documents as submitted by the Complainant, this Forum is of the opinion that it is a fit case to direct the O.Ps jointly or severally to replace the defective mobile set with similar nature and type having same financial value near about of Rs.5,499/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four hundred ninety nine) only or to refund the amount of Rs.5,499/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four hundred ninety nine) only towards the valuation of the mobile set along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum, which will meet the ends of Justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally liable to replace the defective mobile set with similar nature and type having same financial value near about of Rs.5,499/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four hundred ninety nine) only or to refund the amount of Rs.5,499/- (Rupees Five Thousand Four hundred ninety nine) only towards the valuation of the mobile set along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 22nd day of September, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.