1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Iball Andi 19 mobile handset from OP.1 for Rs.4300/- vide retail invoice No.103 dt.05.4.2017 but after few months of purchase the display and keyboard of the handset did not function for which the complainant contacted OP.1 and as per advice of OP.1, the complainant contacted the OP.3, the local service centre at Jeypore who refused to provide any service.  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 and to pay Rs.6000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 3 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has not quoted IMEI number of the handset in the complaint petition for which they  are facing problem to trace out the record of the alleged handset of the complainant and give detail reply.  The OP further contended that the complainant has not relied any job sheet issued by the ASC of the Company.  Challenging territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     During pendency of the case, and after supply of IMEI number of the handset by the complainant, the OP.2 has filed additional counter contending that as per their record, service of OP.3 was disconnected from 01.10.2017 and he is no longer with the OP.2.  It is further contended that the complainant has visited the service centre on 29.11.2017 but prior to that date the service of OP.3 was discontinued and hence the statement of the complainant is doubtful in nature.

4.                     The complainant as well as OP.2 have filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of their cases.  Heard from their A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case, the complainant in support of purchase of Iball Andi 19 handset bearing IMEI No.911530700310109 for Rs.4300/- has filed copy of Retail Invoice No.103 dt.05.04.2017 issued by OP.1.  The complainant stated that due to defect in display and Key Board of the handset, he as per advice of OP.1 approached OP.3 (ASC) of the Company at Jeypore on 29.11.2017 but the ASC refused to give any service.  The complainant stated that he has issued legal notice to the OP.1 on 03.12.2017 but the OP.1 remained silent to that notice  though it was the duty of OP.1 to take up the matter with OP.2.

6.                     The OP.2 after receipt of notice along with copy of complaint filed counter stating that the hand set Serial number is not avilable in the complaint petition.  After supply of IMEI number of the handset the OP.2 filed additional counter stating that the ASC to which the complainant approached at Jeypore on 29.11.2017 was no more their service centre w.e.f. 01.10.2017 as the OP.2 has discontinued service franchise of OP.3.  The OP.2 stated that in view of above fact, the statement of the complainant is doubtful.

7.                     The A/R for OP.2 submitted at the time of hearing that the handset of the complainant was water logged and the complainant has repaired the handset  other than the ASC of the Company.  We do not understand as to how the OP.2 knew that the handset of the complainant was water logged and the complainant has repaired the set elsewhere.  If the statement of OP.2 is like this, then the OP.2 was to adduce proper evidence  in support of their above statement.  Further after sale service of the handset is the duty of the OP.2 and the OP.1 being the seller should have passed the matter of the complainant to OP.2 as duty bound but they did not do so.  However, it was within the knowledge of Ops 1 & 2 that the handset of the complainant suffered multiple defect within warranty period but in spite of knowing that they were silent.  Hence the poor complainant should not suffer with the defective handset and is entitled to get refund of its cost with due interest.  Further due to such inaction of Ops 1 & 2, he has filed this  case incurring some expenditure for which in our opinion, he is entitled for cost of Rs.1000/- from OP.2.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 being the manufacturer is directed to refund Rs.4300/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 29.11.2017 (the date of noticing defect) in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)