1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Intex Aqua Power (+) mobile set bearing IMEI No.911442503322101 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.8035 dt.30.07.15 for Rs.9000/- which is manufactured by OP No.3.  After use of 3 months the complainant noticed low battery backup problem in the set which required 8 hours a day to charge for which she approached OP.1 on 10.11.15.  The OP.1 received the set, kept for 2 days and finally on 12.11.15 without any repair advised the complainant to approach the ASC (OP.2) at Jeypore for necessary action.  It is submitted that she disclosed about charging problem in the set before OP.2 who received the set and issued job sheet No.193 dt.12.11.2015 and returned the set on 19.11.15 stating that the defect is rectified.  Again on 23.12.15 the set did not work properly and the complainant approached OP.2 on 24.12.15.  The OP.2 after inspection stated that the set has become moisturized and accordingly issued job sheet no.287 dt.24.12.15.  The OP.2 this time demanded and taken Rs.1300/- for repair stating that this defect is not coming under warranty.  It is further stated that after use of one month the handset suddenly became dead on 23.1.16 and the set was handed over to OP.2 vide job sheet no.323 dt.23.1.16.  The OP.2 suggested the complainant to come after one week but since then the complainant has been approaching the OP.2 for return of her handset but in vain.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops 1 & 3 to refund Rs.9000/- towards cost of the hand set with interest and OP.2 to refund Rs.1300/- which he has taken illegally with compensation of Rs.10, 000/-.  The complainant further prayed the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     On being served the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of her case.  Heard from the complainant through her A/R and perused the materials available on record.

3.                     In this case the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice bearing No.8035 dt.30.7.2015 in support of purchase of Intex handset from OP.1 for Rs.9000/- and hence the purchase of handset by the complainant is proved.  The case of the complainant is that the set did not give proper battery backup for which she has approached the OP.1 for 3 times and  finally as per advice of OP.1, the complainant handed over the set to OP.2 on 12.11.15 for charging problem, the job sheet of which is available on record.  The OP.2 has returned the set on 19.11.15 stated to be defect free handset.

4.                     On 23.12.2015 the complainant found that the set is not functioning properly and on approach to OP.2 on 24.12.2015 stated that the handset is moisturized. The OP.2 issued a non warranty job sheet and collected Rs.1300/- from the complainant within warranty period.  Again on 23.1.16 the handset became dead and on approach the OP.2 received the set and issued job sheet vide no.323 dt.23.1.2016.  The OP.2 assured to return the set after a week but till date the complainant has been approaching the OP.2 for getting back her set but in vain with the reason that the set has been sent to higher centre.

5.                     The Ops in this case have neither participated nor filed counter.  In absence of counter and participation, nothing could be ascertained from them and hence all the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Therefore, it was presumed that the Ops have nothing to say in this case.  It is seen that the OP.2 has received Rs.1300/- from the complainant on 24.12.15 stating that the defect is coming under non warranty and the nature of complaint is “Water logged PCB”  but this job sheet is not sufficient to prove that the PCB is water logged in absence of counter and participation by OP.2.  The A/R for the complainant submitted at the time of hearing that the OP.2 had demanded Rs.1300/- illegally and the handset had not suffered any water content leading to moisture of PCB duly supported by affidavit.  This submission of the A/R for the complainant remained unchallenged due to non participation of the OP.2 in this proceeding.  Further it was seen that the complainant has been suffering due to battery backup problem soon after the purchase of the set which is a vital problem in the set.  The set was also received by OP.2 on 23.1.16 and non return of the set in spite of approach is best known to the OP.2.  During warranty the set became dead and the OP.2 could not bring the set into order and the set is now with OP.2.  As the set was not returned with proper repair, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.9000/- towards cost of the handset from the date of its purchase with interest.  Due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant being a lady has suffered mental agony and physical harassment by coming from Semiliguda to Koraput and Jeypore. Hence she is entitled for some compensation besides cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in her favour will meet the ends of justice.  Further the OP.2 is to be directed to return Rs.1300/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.12.2015 as he had taken that amount illegally.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.9000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 30.07.2015 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.  Further the OP.2 is directed to refund Rs.1300/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.12.2015 to the complainant.  The above directions are to be complied by the Ops within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)