1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Intex Acqua Power H.D. Mobile handset vide delivery challan no. – 56, bearing IME Nos – 911428650242793 and 9114228651092794 on dated 23.04.2015 from O.P.No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 9500/- and after using the same for some days, the said mobile started hanging on a constant application and functions stop automatically and became switch off and being approach to the O.P.No.1 for either its repair or replacement, who on return directed to contact with the O.P.No.2 & 3.Further it is submitted that on being approached to the O.P. No. 2 & 3, they did not respond positively even the O.P. No. 1 also said that the alleged mobile handset is having manufacture defect and he cannot do anything, whereas the alleged handset is under warranty.Thus, with other allegations, the complainant showing the deficiency in service and unfare trade practice on the part of O.Ps., filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps for its replacement and claimed Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his written version admitting that the complainant had purchased the alleged handset from him.  It is also contended that the complainant had handed over the mobile hand for repair to him for its repair, which was in return sent to the O.P. No. 2 for its rectification of defect and with other submissions, the O.P.No.1 prayed for dismiss the case against him, but did not participate in the hearing.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 & 3 though have received the notice from this Hon’ble Forum, did not choose to appear in this case, nor they filed the counter / written version nor also participated in the hearing, as such we have lost opportunities to hear from them.  
    
4. Except complainant no other parties to the present disputes, have filed any documents.  Heard from the Complainant at length and perused the materials available on record.
    
5. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Intex Acqua Power H.D. Mobile handset vide delivery challan no.–56, bearing IME Nos – 911428650242793 and 9114228651092794 on 23.04.2015 from O.P.No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 9500/- and the said handset is a product of O.P.No.2 & 3.  From the submissions of Complainant and the versions submitted in the counter filed by the O.P.No.1, it is also well proved that the after using for some days, the alleged handset started hanging in a constant application and became switch off and stopped functioning, for which, the complainant has handed over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.1 for its repair or replacement and all the incident have taken place during the warranty period.
    
6. Further at the time of hearing, it is also averred by the complainant that due to unfair trade practice followed by the O.P. No.1 he could not get the utility of the alleged mobile handset and the handset lying dead.  We have perused the materials available on records.  It is ascertained that the O.P. No. 1 though have filed his counter stating that he has sent the alleged mobile handset to the O.P. No.2 for rectification of defects, but miserably failed to produce any documentary evidences to that effect, hence the versions of O.P.No.1 is not believable at this stage.   And since the O.P.No.2 & 3 did not appear in this case, we lost opportunities to ascertain the exact defects of the alleged mobile handset. 
    
7. However, from the foregoing paras, we feel that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant was having some defects since the day of purchase, which occurred using after some days.  In this long gap, due non action of the O.Ps, definitely the handset became defunct and must have lying dead, which is of no use, hence the repair of whole set is quite impossible.Further we feel, replacement of the alleged mobile handset is the only solutions, which will meet the ends of justice.
    
8. In the above facts and circumstances, it can be concluded in the case in hand that the alleged handset suffers from the defects which cannot be rectified for which the OP No. 2 & 3 being the manufacturer and marketer of the Intex Mobile Handset, are liable and the complainant is entitled for its replacement, further for the non co-operation attitude of O.Ps, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also filed this case incurring some expenditures, for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 500/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice. 

ORDER

 That the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 & 3 being the manufacturer and marketer of the alleged product, jointly and severally liable are directed to replace the alleged handset mobile with a new defect free handset of same model and same costs and to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8^th day of December, 2017.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.

                                          Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

                                     Member                                                           President (I/c)