1.             The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Nitro Canvas 311 handset from OP.1 through online purchase vide Invoice No. S9A9B8/14-15/1734 dt.24.01.2015 for Rs.12, 400/- and handed over to OP No.2 Service Centre on 12.09.2017 for tower problem in the handset.  The OP.2 received defective set and issued job sheet.  It is submitted that he visited the service Centre on different dates for a long period of time to receive back the repaired handset but the service Centre did not return the set with repair with different pleas.  After few days, the complainant found that the service Centre is closed and no telephone call is being received by the service Centre staff members.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to give him justice.

2.                         The notice on OP.1 returned with postal remark “Left”.  Notice on OP No.2 could not be served since service centre is closed.  The OP.3 did not prefer to file counter in spite of valid notice.  We also failed to hear from the parties but perused the materials available on record.

3.                         In this case, it is seen from the record that the complainant has purchased the alleged handset from OP.1 on 24.01.2015 and has used the set till 12.09.2017.  That means, the set has been used for 2 years and 8 months without any defect whereas the warranty period is one year on the product.  The handset has shown tower problem on 12.09.2017 and the copy of job sheet filed by the complainant shows that the handset was handed over to OP.2 on 28.10.2017 for repair.  In the above premises it was clearly noticed that the handset had no manufacturing defect but after long use tower problem was noticed.  It was the duty of OP.2 service centre to rectify the defect on cost paid basis and the complainant has duly handed over the set to OP.2.  As such the OP.3, the manufacturer has no role to play in this matter.

4.                         The complainant has approached the OP.2 on different dates but finally the service centre was found to be closed by OP.2 for which the complainant could not receive back his repaired hand set.  After filing of this case, notice on OP-2 could not be served as the service centre is admittedly closed.  The complainant on 05.04.2018 vide Order No.5 was directed by the Forum to furnish correct address of OP.2 service centre but he failed to provide it.  In absence of correct address, fresh notice could not be served.  As whereabouts of OP.2 is not available, our hands are tight.

5.                         In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant and hence it needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the case but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)