For Complainant          :             Self

For all the Ops.              :             None.

                                                                                      -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Gionee Smart phone model-Marathon M5 Plus, IMEI No.86062303018186918 from OP.1 vide Retail Invoice No.2232 dt.22.9.2016 for Rs.22, 000/- but after few days of its use regular problem in LCD and Touch Pad was found in the set for which the complainant approached the ASC (OP.2) several times but the problems could not be rectified.  Finally, the complainant handed over the set to OP.2 on 17.3.2017 but the problems could not be removed and the OP.2 stated that due to manufacturing defect the handset cannot be repaired.  The alleging defects in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.22, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost besides Rs.100/- per day towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                         In spite of valid notice, the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner and hence they remained exparte.

3.                         The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the complainant in absence of Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, purchase of alleged handset by the complainant from OP.1 is supported by copy of retain invoice dt.22.9.2016 and hence the purchase of handset is proved.  The complainant stated that within few days of purchase, the LCD blinking and Touch Pad problems were noticed in the handset for which he approached the ASC (OP.2) of the Company and finally on 17.3.2017 he handed over the set to OP.2 for repair of the defects.   The above contention of the complainant is supported by the job sheet dt.17.3.2017 issued by OP.2.  It is seen that the handset was within the warranty period when it was handed over to the service centre.  The case of the complainant is that the ASC could not repair the set and opined that the set has got its manufacturing defect and hence the set is lying with the complainant un repaired.

5.                         In absence of counter and participation of the Ops in this proceeding, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  The job sheet speaks itself about the defects in the handset and according to the complainant it could not be repaired by the ASC stated to be manufacturing defect by the said ASC.  We have lost opportunity to know anything from the Ops.  In the above circumstances, we have no option but to believe the version of the complainant and come to the conclusion that the set purchased by the complainant has got inherent manufacturing defect for which he is suffering.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset from OP.3, the manufacturer with interest @ 12% p.a. from 17.3.2017 when the set was handed over to ASC.  Further due to defective handset, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Thus he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- 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.22, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 17.3.2017 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)