1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P. No.1 bearing Model No. galaxy-A-5 SM- A 500 g and IMEI No.356320/06/487595/0 and IMEI No.356321/06/487595/8 and paid Rs.21,500 vide challan no.930 dated 27.08.2015 alongwith a warranty certificate which was insured with the O.P. No.2 for a consideration of Rs.2499/- and one month after its purchase, the handset showed some defects and finally stopped its functioning and did not get its utility. Further he alleges that he approached the O.P.No.1 for its repair and rectification of defects, and after keeping the said mobile for about 20 years, the O.P.No.1 returned the alleging handset stating that the same was repaired. and  after his returned to his house, on the very day, he found the same defects persists alongwith  some other defect, thus alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade  practice, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps to replace the defective mobile handset or to refund the cost of mobile, Rs. 50,000/- and  Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from this for a, the O.P. No.1 appeared in this case and filed his written version admitting about the purchase of alleged handset by the complainant and stated that he is only the retail selling point but not the service center and further he contends he is not liable for any manufacturing defect and it is only the company who is liable for defect in goods and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 represented though their authorized representative who appeared in this case, filed their counter denying their liabilities with the contentions that since the complainant has not filed any expert opinion report in respect of the defects occurred in the alleged handset, as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. Further they have contended that the alleged products was purchased by the complainant after being satisfied with its performances, which was put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for dispatch to the market, and also they have contended the complainant has not produced any expert opining report from a notified laboratory to prove her allegations emphasizing the provisions u/s 13(1)© of the Act, and with other contentions they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. The O.P. No.. 3 though have received the notice from this Hon’ble Forum, did not choose to appear in this case, nor he filed the counter/written versions nor also participated in the hearing, as such, we have lost opportunities to hear from them in respect of the insurance coverage of the product.
    
5. Complainant has filed certain documents like retail invoice vide no. 930 dated 27.08.2015 issued by O.P. No.1 and Job sheet vide bill no. 4203155040 dated 20.10.2015 issued by the ASC of the O.P.No.2 to prove his allegations regarding defects in the alleged handset and one document showing the insurance coverage of the products. On the other hand, the O.Ps have not filed any single documents in support of their contentions and also never challenged the documents filed by the complainant.
    
6. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Samsung Mobile handset from O.P. No.1 bearing Model No. Galaxy-A-5 Sm A 500 G and IMEI No. 356320/06/487595/0 and IMEI No. 356321/06/487595/8 and paid Rs. 21,500/- vide challan no. 930 dated 27.08/.2015 alongwith a warranty certificate which was insured with the O.P.No.2 for a consideration of Rs. 2499/- and one month after its purchase, the handset showed some defects and finally stopped its functioning and became defunct, for which he approached the O.P. No. 1 for its repair and rectification of defects. We have carefully gone the through  the documents filed by the complainant and found that the job sheet issued by the ASC of the O.P. No.2 clearly indicates that in the defect description column that “Display problem & back properly not working” and O.P. No.2 has not file any documents to make contrary to the averments made by the complainant. Hence we fell that the alleged mobile was returned to the complainant without any repair or rectifying its defects.
    
7.  Further, we have gone though the insurance document issued  by the O.P. No.3 and found that the defects of the alleged mobile hand set is not covered under the insurance documents filed by the  complainant. Hence the allegation against the O.P. No. 3 dose not arises.
    
8. From the submissions of complainant and the documents filed by him, it is prima facie established that the alleged handset was having defects like display problems and back not properly working prior to the date on which it was handed over to the authorized service center of O.P. No. 2. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 has challenged that since there is no expert opinion report filed by the complainant, it cannot be believed that the alleged handset was having inherent defects. In this connection, we feel that as per job sheet filed by the complainant it is clearly proves that the alleged product was having display problem and other defects thereon. Further the O.P. No.2 has not filed any supportive documents to make contrary to the allegations of the complainant except their oral submissions of the O.P. No.2 cannot be relied on. Further it is well settled principles that if one person is not having sufficient documents to prove his allegations, it does not mean that the liability of opposite parties is over.
    
9. Further non production of any cogent documents by the O.P. No.2 in the present proceeding, we have lost opportunities to ascertain the exact problems occurred in the alleged handset and lying unused the said mobile handset more than two years, in our view, is of no use.
    
10. Hence, on the basis of the arguments made by the parties and considering the above discussions, we fell the complainant deserves to be compensated with the replacement of a new mobile of same costs and for non providing better service by the O.P. No.2 to their valuable customer like the complainant, he must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for compelled to life this case insurance some expenses, as such he also deserves for compensation and costs. Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-  towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.

ORDER

           The complainant petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is directed to replace the defective mobile with a new defect free mobile of  same costs and to pay Rs. 1000/- towards compensations 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 amounts shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order. Further the complainant is directed to return the alleged defective mobile handset to the concerned person of the OP.No.2 at the time of complying the above order by the OP.No.1 No order against O.P. No.3.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of January, 2018. 

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.