1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Intex mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. Intex Aqua Desire HD vide invoice no. – 438 dated 06.08.2015 for consideration of Rs. 8,300/- alongwith warranty certificate and after one month, the said mobile showed several defects for which he consulted with the O.P.No. 1 for several times, for which the O.P. No. 1 repaired the same on each time, but on use, the said handset repeated its problem and stopped functioning, as such while he contacted with the O.P.No.1, who enraged and misbehaved the complainant in front of the public.Thus, with other allegations, the complainant showing the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps. filed this present case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps for its replacement or to refund the cost of the mobile and claimed Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
    
2. On the other hand, inspite of valid notices served upon the O.Ps, they neither choose to appear in this case nor filed their counter nor also participated in the hearing, as such we lost opportunities to hear from them.
    
3. 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.
    
4. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Intex Aqua Desire H.D. Mobile handset vide delivery challan no.–438 dated 06.08.2015 for consideration of Rs. 8,300/- from the O.P.No.1 and the said handset is a product of O.P.No.2.  It is alleged that the after one months of its use, the said mobile handset exhibited several defects, for which the Complainant for several times had been to the shop of O.P.No.1 who in return, repaired the alleged handset, but the alleged defects were reiterated while on further it’s use.  
    
5. During hearing, the allegations of Complainant were well established, and the same are remained unchallenged as the said allegations have not been rebutted by the Opp. Parties in disputes.  It is also well proved that after repair work carried out by the O.P.No.1 for several times, the alleged handset exhibited the same problems as it was having earlier and all the incident have taken place during the warranty period.  Further at the time of hearing, it is also averred by the complainant that O.P.No.1 has enraged and misbehaved the Complainant in front of public and loudly told that he cannot set right the manufacturing defects.  We have perused the materials available on records, but did not find any single evidence in that regard, as such, it is quite impossible to ascertain the sufferings and loss occurred to the Complainant.  The Complainant neither able to produce any documentary evidence nor could able to prove his allegations properly.  Further, since the O.P.No. 1 & 2 did not appear in this case, we lost opportunities to ascertain the exact defects of the alleged mobile handset. 
    
6. However, from the foregoing paras, we feel that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant was having some defects since the day after using the said mobile handset for one month and in this long gap, due non action of the O.Ps, definitely the handset became defunct and 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.
    
7. 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 at this moment for which the OP No. 2 being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is only liable to compensate the Complainant.  Hence this order.

ORDER

That the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged mobile handset is herewith directed to replace the alleged handset mobile with a new defect free handset of same cost with fresh warranty within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the cost of mobile shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of March, 2018.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.