1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Canvas 2.2 mobile from OP.1 for Rs.7500/- IMEI Nos.911343506456625/ 911343506957127 Vide Invoice No.36 dt.14.5.2015 but from the day one of its purchase, the handset was having some inherent problems like poor battery backup and set overheating.  It is submitted that the set was handed over to OP.2, the ASC of OP.3 for repairing but the OP.2 after a lapse of 9 months is not returning the set to the complainant in spite of requests.  It is further submitted that the OP.3 being the manufacturer is also liable for providing a defective set to the complainant.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.7500/- towards cost of the set and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter contending that the complainant on 14.5.2015 had purchased the alleged handset to his full satisfaction regarding its functioning and during April, 2016 he approached this OP regarding malfunctioning of the set and he was advised to approach the ASC at Jeypore and from that day the complainant has never approached the OP.1 and this OP has no knowledge whether the complainant has handed over the set to ASC.  It is submitted that it is the duty of OP.2 to repair the handset and OP.3 to replace the set if the handset has got manufacturing defect within the warranty period and hence the OP.1 has no liability in this matter.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 in spite of valid notice neither fled counter, nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that none of the parties at any point of time has intimated the OP.3 regarding the allegations made in the complaint petition.  It is further contended that the present dispute does not say about any manufacturing defect and hence there is no cause of action to sue the OP.3.  It is also submitted that no technical expert report has been submitted by the complainant to show that the alleged set is defective.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     The complainant has only filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the A/R for the complainant and Op. 3 and perused the materials available on record.

6.                     In this case purchase of Micromax canvas 2.2 mobile handset by the complainant from OP No.1 for Rs.7500/- vide Invoice No.36 dt.14.5.2015 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that from the day one of its purchase, some inherent problems in respect of low battery backup and overheating was noticed and hence the set was handed over to ASC (OP.2) but after lapse of nine months the ASC is not returning the handset in spite of repeated approaches.

7.                     The A/R for OP.3 vehemently submitted before the Forum that the complainant at no point of time has intimated that the said mobile was having some inherent problems in respect of its battery backup and overheating and not a single document has been filed to that respect.   In this context, we have perused the job sheet dt.09.5.2014 wherein it has been mentioned that the set is overheating and battery back up empty. Hence it was the duty of the ASC of OP.3 to rectify the defect free of charges and the defect arose during warranty period but the ASC failed to do it.  In our opinion, those defects are serious in nature and with those defects; a set cannot be used.

8.                     Further the A/R for OP.3 is grumbling about expert opinion.  In this context, it can be said that the ASC duly appointed by OP.1 Company is an expert centre in the field of mobile repairing and the said ASC has issued job sheet as narrated supra from which it was clearly ascertained that the handset of the complainant is suffering series of defects for which it could not be repaired for used.  Lastly the ASC could not repair the set and kept with him till date.  In the above circumstances, it can be safely hold that the handset sold to the complainant is a defective one and the OP.3 being the manufacturing company is to refund Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards cost of the handset with due interest.  As the ASC has not done its duty prudently and kept the handset without taking necessary action in time, it has committed deficiency in service.  It also appears that the OP.3 has full control over OP.2 but for lack of proper supervision so many customers are suffering at the hands of OP.2. Hence it is to be directed to OP.3 to return the handset in question with proper repair to the complainant or refund its costs with interest.  For such unfair and inaction of the ASC, the complainant must have suffered serious mental agony and also has come up with this case incurring some expenditure and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation and costs.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost.

11.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to return the handset in question with proper repair to the satisfaction of the complainant or to refund Rs.7500/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 18.2.2017 and in any case the OP.3 is to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.  The above directions are to be complied by OP.3 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)