1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she is the resident of Semiliguda where her parents reside but the complainant is staying at Puri for her studies at Bhubaneswar.  In order to contact with her parents, her father, Sri Mahesh Baral purchased a Micromax Mobile handset AO68, IMEI No. 911353550623186 for his daughter from OP.1 for a sum of Rs.6400/- vide Bill No.1839 dt.06.06.14.  It is submitted that after 3 months of its use the complainant found incoming and outgoing problems in the handset for which she handed over the set to OP.2 on 13.9.14, which is the authorised service centre of Micromax Mobiles and the OP.2 advised the complainant to take back the repaired set on 19.9.14 but the OP did not issue the job sheet.  On 19.9.14 when approached, the OP stated that some parts are to be received from OP.3 to undertake the repair on the set and advised the complainant to come after 15 days.  On 08.10.14 when the complainant approached, the OP.2 adopted the same practice and stated that the parts are still to come.  When the complainant demanded return of the set, the OP.2 demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant towards inspection charges.  The complainant returned with empty hands.  It is further submitted that the complainant along with her uncle on 29.01.15 when demanded return of the handset, the OP.2 stated that a complaint has been registered before OP.3 and this time the OP.2 issued Job Sheet dt.29.01.15 and the OP assured to return the set within a week.  In this manner the OP.2 consumed time and did not return the set till filing of this case.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to return the cost of the handset and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in any manner.  Hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide Order No.15 dt.11.2.16.  OP No.3 filed counter through its A/R denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP as the complaint petition has been filed by a person other than the complainant.  It is contended that the OP.3 has no knowledge about the sale of alleged handset to the complainant and the alleged defect in the handset.  It is further contended that the complainant has not made a single correspondence with OP.3 regarding the alleged defect in the set.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of her case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, Payal Baral is the consumer of the Ops as the handset has been purchased in her name by his father and natural guardian, Sri Mahesh Baral.  By the date, the present case is filed, Payal was minor as ascertained from the cause title of this case and hence she has rightly filed this case on being represented through her father.  However, it is found that the Micromax handset bearing Model AO68 and IMEI No.911353550623186 as per Invoice No.1839 dt.06.06.14 of OP.1 has been purchased by the complainant for Rs.6400/-.  The case of the complainant is that after 3 months of its use she found incoming and outgoing problems in the handset for which she approached the ASC (OP.2) of Micromax on 13.9.14 for repair.  The OP.2 has received the set and advised the complainant to come on 19.9.14.  When the complainant approached on 19.9.14, the OP.2 advised her to come after 15 days as some parts are to be received from OP.3.  As the complainant approached on 08.10.14 to receive his repaired set, the OP.2 took the same plea of non receipt of parts.  When the complainant wanted to take back her set un repaired, the OP.2 has demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant towards inspection charges.

5.                     The above allegations of the complainant against OP.2 are duly supported by affidavit.  In absence of participation and counter of OP.2 in this proceeding, the above allegations of the complainant also remained unchallenged.  Hence it can easily be concluded that the complainant was subjected to harassment at the hands of OP.2.

6.                     It is further the case of the complainant that when she approached on 29.01.15 with her uncle, the OP.2 stated that he has lodged a complaint with OP.3 and issued job sheet dt.29.1.15 in favour of the complainant and advised to come after a week.  Thereafter, the complainant is running behind the OP.2 to get return of her set but in vain.  The father of the complainant has received a message on 03.02.15 to collect the handset from OP.2.  When the complainant approached OP.2 on 04.2.15, the OP.2 advised the complainant to come after 2 days.

7.                     The OP.3 in his counter stated that it has neither the knowledge of sale of alleged handset to the complainant nor about any repair on it.  This reply of OP.3 does not sound good because the OP.3 has appointed Distributors, Dealers etc. to sale its products and has established Authorized Service Centre to look into the after sale service of its products.  OP.2 is one of them.  The OP.3 is supposed to know about the sale of its products and the activities done at its ASCs.  Any fault or shortcomings made by its ASC, is the liability of OP.3 and periodical supervision over the ASCs is the look out of the OP No.3.  The A/R for OP No.3 has relied the judgments of higher Forums including the Apex Court and on due regard to the same; we found that those verdicts have no relevancy to the present case in hand.

8.                     In this case, the ASC of OP.2 was playing mischief with the complainant.  For repair of a handset, the customer should not run to the ASCs beyond expectations.  The complainant went to the OP.2 more than 5 times to receive her handset repaired but in vain.  This is too much on the part of OP.2.  The OP.3 is to monitor all the activities of its ASCs otherwise the very purpose of establishing ASCs will be defeated.

9.                     The complainant suffered harassment due to mnonopolistic behavior of OP.2 for which she is to be suitably compensated.  Due to non participation of OP.2 in the proceeding, we failed to know the present position of the handset.  The OP.3 also failed to intimate the Forum about it.  In the above circumstances, we feel the Op.3 is to pay the cost of the handset due to fault of its ASC and the OP.2 is to pay the compensation for the sufferings of the complainant.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.  The OP No.3 is to collect the defective handset from OP.2 after payment of its cost to the complainant.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to pay Rs.6400/- towards cost of the handset and the OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the parties are to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded sums from the date of this order.  The OP.3 is further directed to collect the defective handset in question from OP.2.

(to dict.)