In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Handset of  Micromax Company for a sum of Rs.7000/-  vide bill No. 285 dated 18.6.2014 from opposite party No.1 i.e. Om Mobile Gallery Hisar, manufactured by opposite party No.3 i.e. Micromax India Private Ltd. Opposite party No.2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.3.  It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set mis-functioning and display touch screen of the said mobile was not properly working.  The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and acquainted him with the above defect. Therefore, at the instance of opposite party No.1, he took it to authorized Service Centre i.e. opposite party No.2 who kept the mobile handset and asked him to come after some days. When complainant approached opposite party No.2 after some days he was again asked to  come after 10/12  days. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 stated that there was a manufacturing defect in the mobile and cannot be repaired at all and not returned the mobile of complainant to him stating that the same is lying with the OP No.3. The complainant then asked them to change the defective mobile with a new one or to return its sale price but opposite party No.3 refused to do so. They also misbehaved with the complainant; hence, this complaint, for  a direction to the opposite parties, for replacement of the mobile hand set or in alternative, for the refund of its price of Rs.7000/- with upto date interest,  besides  damages for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.       Despite service, opposite parties did not appear hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.4.2015.

3.       In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure-A Photostat copy of  bill dated  18.6.2014, Annexure-B Photostat copy of Job Sheet dated 19.11.2014, Annexure-C his own supporting affidavit.

4.       We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant.

5.       The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the mobile hand set was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 18.6.2014 annexure-A for Rs.7000/- from opposite party No.1. The said mobile hand set of the complainant got defective and the opposite party No.2 repaired the same vide job sheet dated 19.11.2014 Annexure-B, but again the mobile hand set of the complainant got defective and not working properly.

6.       In view of the pleadings and supported documents, we hold that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. The opposite party No.2, the service centre of opposite party No.3 manufacturer  of mobile hand set, could not rectified the defect in the mobile hand set of the complainant.

7.       Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model, if the same model is not available then of the same price of the mobile hand set. This order be complied within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. No order as to costs.

Announced
Dated:04.09.2015