1.Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps. for replacement of the mobile or refund the price value of mobile alongwith compensation.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that, he has purchased a Samsung mobile set bearing Model No J 2 dtd.18.3.2018 for a consideration for Rs.6,600/-.The O.P. No.1 has issued cash memo on the said date in favour of the complainant. After some days the mobile set could not functioned properly so the complainant reported the matter before the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1  sent it to the  nearest Service center for is repairing and try to rectify the defect. To this effect a message has been sent in the mobile of the complainant regarding repair of the said mobile set. Again after  some days  the same set was found defective and  the complainant again   approached to the o.P.No.1 for its repairing and the O.P.No.1 sent it to the authorize Service center for its repairing. Again the hand set was found defective as a result of which the complainant could not use the same for his personal use and sustained mental agony for the above facts. The O.P. also try to rectify the defect in the hand set but failed to do so.So the complainant requested the O.P. to exchange the hand set and provide him anew hand set, but the O.P. turn a deaf ear  on the request of the complainant.As the O.P. could not take any step the complainant forced to file this case before this forum against the O.Psfor replacement the same set or pay the price value of the same set alognwith compensation.
2. After being noticed, the O.Ps appeared in this case and filed their respective counter. The case of the O.PNo1 is that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The O.P. No.1 admits the purchase of the mobile bearing model NO.J2 for a consideration of Rs.6,600/-and also admits the  receipt given by him on the said purchase. The O.P.No.1 also admitted that the mobile was found defective and he has transmitted the nearest service center to rectify the defect. He has no fault regarding the defect of the mobile set and pray for dismissal of the case. The case of the O.P.No.2 is that  the complaint is entirely misconceived  untenable  in the eye of law. The O.P. No.2 denied all the allegation made by the complainant. The O.P. further submitted that  the role is limited  for product and quality  of the  company. The O.P.  admits that  the mobile set received by the service center after 5 months of use and problem arise due to virus problem. The O.P.No.2 also admits that the mobile set was received by  the service center and defect was found in the said set. The O.P. No.2 submits there is  no defect  in the mobile and the O.P. provide as per the warranty term which is reflect in the job sheet attached by the complainant. The complainant has filed the cash memo of the purchase of the mobile set and also  a job sheet  showing  the defect of the mobile set
3. The point for determination in the case whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps and whether the O.Ps caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the complainant.
4. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has purchased the mobile on payment of Rs.6,600/- on dtd.18.3.2018 and  there is also warranty for one year  on the defect of the said hand set. As such the complainant is a consumer against the O.P.s.The O.P.No.1 also admits the mobile was found defective and   he tried his best by sending the authorize center and after repair the  same again the mobile set was defect after lapse of some days which proves deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice  by the O.Ps against the complainant.
5. Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and counter filed by the O.Ps, submission made by them, we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.PNo2. to refund the price value of Rs.6,600/-(Rupees six thousand six hundred) only to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The O.P No.2 is further directed to payRs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only towards compensation and litigation cost to the complainant.The case against O.P.No.1 is dismissed without cost.

            Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 19^th day of December, 2018