1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a MAXX AX8RACE model handset IMEI No.911257400306431 from OP.1 for Rs.6000/- vide Invoice No.1793 dt.21.02.2014 but after few months of its use, the handset did not function properly for which it was handed over to OP.3 ASC on 11.11.2014 for repair under warranty.  The OP.3 issued job sheet and assured to return the set within a week but after a week the OP.3 stated that the handset has got manufacturing defect for which it requires repair at higher Centre.  It is submitted that since last 2 years on repeated approach, the Ops 1 & 3 are not giving satisfactory reply for which the complainant is facing hardship in his day to day line.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops 1 & 2 to replace the handset with a new one and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter admitting purchase of that particular mode of handset by the complainant and at the time of purchase, the complainant was advised to report before the ASC if any defect arose in the handset.  It is contended that the complainant has deposited the handset before the ASC and on the request of the OP.1; the complainant has got another set for the ASC for his use.  It is further contended that the OP.1 is only the retailer of the handset and if any defect noticed in the handset, it is the duty of Ops 2 & 3 either to repair the set or replace it if necessary.  Thus denying the any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Registered notice on OP.2 returned unserved with postal remark “not claimed”.  The OP No.3 filed counter contending that he is no more a service provider for OP.2 as the ASP agreement between the parties has been terminated w.e.f. 05.11.2015.  Admitting defect in the handset of the complainant the OP contended that he had replaced the defective set with a new one and after receipt of new handset; the complainant till date has not returned the original service voucher as he forcibly snatched the new mobile from the customer executive.  It is further contended that for the prestige of the Company, he has not reported the matter to the Police.  Alleging mischievous tendency of the complainant and denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.   

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

5.                     In this case, purchase of MAXX handset by the complainant from OP.1 and the defective handset received by OP.3 on 11.11.14 for sending the same to the higher Centre for repair are all admitted facts.  The OP.1 stated that the complainant has received another handset from OP.3 in place of defective one.  The OP.3 also stated in his counter that the complainant has snatched away with a new handset from Customer Executive of the Company with a mischievous manner without returning the original service voucher.  It is seen that the complainant has not disclosed the fact in the complaint petition.

6.                     It is seen from the record that the OP.2 has not received registered notice from the Forum.  The OP.3 is no more a service provider of OP.2 w.e.f. 05.11.15.  It is further seen that one Sri Pravakar Jena and another Sri Biswanath Pradhani have filed affidavit in support of ASC stating that the complainant left with a new handset forcefully without returning the service voucher.  From the above facts, it was clearly ascertained that the complainant has got a new handset in lieu of defective one.  Without admitting the fact, the complainant is praying for another set with compensation unfortunately.

7.                     In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant and he is not entitled to any relief.  Thus the complaint petition needs for dismissal.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)