1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung Galaxy – E7 mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model vide IMEI No. 358185/06/696624/0 and paid Rs. 17,000/- vide bill no. 084 dated 180.02.2016 and after 15 days, he found defect in touch screen and other problems like charging problem and overheat on body parts, for which the said mobile automatically going switch off, as such he contacted with the O.P.no.1 on 04.03.2016 and narrated the fact and left the mobile with him for about 30 days, but returned the same without any repair and misbehaved him in present of the public and thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receiving the notice from this Fora, 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 the complainant has never intimated him for any repair nor handed over his mobile handset to him, rather he stated that the complainant had met directly with the Customer Care Centre, Malkangiri and the O.P. has no knowledge about any defects in the alleged mobile, and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 appeared in this case through their A/R, 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 despatch to the market, and also they have contended the complainant has not produced any expert opinion report from a notified laboratory to prove his allegations emphasizing the provisions u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act, and with other contentions they have prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Except complainant, no other parties have filed any documents in support of their contentions.  
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one Samsung Galaxy – E7 mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model vide IMEI No. 358185/06/696624/0 and paid Rs. 17,000/- vide bill no. 084 dated 180.02.2016.  The allegations of complainant that after 15 days, he found defect in touch screen and other problems like charging problem and overheat on body parts for which the mobile going switch off, for which the complainant contacted with the O.P.no.1 on 04.03.2016, whereas, though the same is challenged by the O.P.No. 1 but miserably failed to prove his contentions by producing documentary evidences like job sheet register for the date on which the complainant met with the O.P.No.1 i.e. 04.03.2016, rather the O.P. No. 1 on the other hand admitted in his counterpart that the complainant had directly met with the Customer Care Centre, Malkangiri, which clearly evident that the alleged mobile handset was having the defects as alleged by the complainant in his claim petition.  Further, the O.P. No.2 has not brought any contradiction to the effect that the alleged mobile handset had not exist any defect on the date of occurrence, whereas they could have produced the details of service provided by the Customer Care Center, as submitted by the O.P. No. 1, rather they demanded for expert opinion report.  Therefore, in our opinion, without any cogent evidence, the contentions of the O.Ps does not have any stand value.    
    
6. From the submissions of Complainant and counter versions of the O.P. No.1, it is prima facie established that the alleged handset was having defects like touch screen, charging problems and overheat formation in the body part of the alleged, and non production of any cogent evidence from their Customer Care Center, the O.P. No. 2 has miserably failed to prove their contentions.
    
7. Hence, on the basis of the arguments made by the parties and considering the above discussions, we feel the complainant deserves to be compensated with the cost of the alleged mobile handset and for non providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the complainant, he must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses, as such he also deserves for compensation and costs.  Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order.  

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset of Rs. 17,000/- and to pay Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- 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.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged defective mobile handset to the concerned person of the O.P.No. 2 at the time of complying the above order by the O.P. No. 2. 

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

                Issue free copies to the parties concerned.