The case of the complainant in brief is that on 02.11.2012 complainant purchased a cell phone from the OP No.2 bearing Model Karbonn A-18 with Rs. 9,700/-.  On 10.10.2014 some defects regarding touch screen and mouth speaker started showing in the said cell phone which deemed to be a manufacturing defect to the complainant.  The complainant visited the OP No.1 to service the said cell phone.  The OP No.1 repaired the cell phone and returned it to the complainant on 14.10.2014 by charging the complainant Rs. 1,645/-.  But the mouth speaker of the said cell phone never got repaired and the complainant returned the handset to the OP No.1 for further repairing.  On request of OP No.1 the complainant took back the hand set on 16.10.2014. 

                   After receiving the said handset from OP No.1 the complainant found that the LCD of the handset was totally damaged.  Finding such defect the complainant did not take it back from the OP No.1 and it is still lying with the OP No.1.

The OP No. 2 did not turn up despite proper service of notice.  Hence case proceeds ex-parte against the OP No.2.

The OP No.1 & 3 contested the case by filing W/V denying each and every allegation against them.

The OP No.1 stated in their W/V that on 10.10.2014 the complainant came to the OP No.1 with complaint of touch screen of his alleged cell phone. The OP repaired the same by replacing the touch panel of the said cell phone and the complainant received it on 11.10.2014 from the OP No.1 by paying Rs.1,645/- on full satisfaction but no complaint regarding the mouth speaker was made by the complainant so question for repairing of the mouth speaker does not arise and after taking delivery of the handset  after its repairing on 11.10.2014 the  complainant never turned  to the OP No.1.

The OP No.1 submitted that it was totally false that on request of the OP No.1 the complainant took back the handset on 16.10.2014 and after receiving the same he found that the LCD of the handset was totally damaged.  Moreover the complainant never came to the OP No.1 with any complaint after taking delivery of his mobile phone on 10.11.2014 and the handset is lying with the complainant under his use and occupancy.

The OP No.3 in their W/V submitted that on 11.10.2014 the complainant visited their service centre and deposited his handset as out of warranty to OP No.1 who will clear the complainant issue.

                  Based on the respective submission of the parties following points            are come up for determination:-

        1) Is the instant case maintainable in its present form?

        2) Is there any deficiency on the part of the OPs? 

        3) Is the complainant entitled to the relief as sought for?

                  Complainant files the following documents in support of their q              contention:-

        1) Original copy of Bill of purchase dated 02.11.2014.

        2) Original copy of Bill Charged dated 11.10.2014.

        3) Original copy of receipt dated 10.10.2014.

    OP No. 3 filed the following documents:-

   1) Warranty Card.

   2) Tax invoice dated 02.11.2012.

   3) In voice dated 11.10.2014.

    Both the complainant, OP No.1and OP No.3 filed their evidence.

Issue No. 1

Both the addressed of the shop of OP No. 1 & 2 are in Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, Dist- Darjeeling which are under territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant purchased the Mobile set from the OP No.2 and when defects started in the said cell phone he took it to OP No.1 for repairing.  The OP No.1 returned the repaired Cell Phone to the complainant by charging Rs. 1,645/- hence it is clear that the complainant is a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Again it is relevant to note that complainant’s claim in this case is well below rupees Twenty lakh. Hence the case is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  So the case is well maintainable before this Forum.

Issue Nos. 2 & 3.

          This Two issues being interlinked are taken up together for discussion and consideration.

                            The complainant claimed that he purchased a mobile phone with Rs. 9,700/- from the OP No.2 on 02.11.2012 and on 10.10.2014 some defects regarding touch screen and mouth speaker started in the said cell phone the complainant took it to the OP No. 1 for servicing/repairing and OP No.1 returned the repaired cell phone the complainant on 14.10.2014.  On the contrary the OP No.1 claimed that the complainant came to the OP No.1 on 10.10.2014 with complaint of touch screen of his cell phone and after repairing of the cell phone the complainant took it from the OP No. 1 on 11.10.2014.  The invoice issued by the OP No.1to the complainant showed the invoice date was 11.10.2014 but no receiving date is there to show that after repairing the complainant received it on 14.10.2014. Moreover it was seen that the invoice dated 11.10.2014 issued by the OP No.1 only for touch panel against which the complainant paid Rs. 1,645/- not for mouth speaker.  The complainant further claim that when he found the defect regarding the mouth speaker of the cell phone was not repaired he returned the handset to the OP No.1 for repairing the same defect.  The complainant further claimed that on request of the OP No.1 on 16.10.2014 he took back the handset from the OP No.1 and after receiving the handset the complainant found that the LCD was totally damaged and finding such defect the complaint did not take it back from the OP No.1 and it is still lying with the OP No.1. The OP No.1 submitted in their W/V that on 11.10.2014 the complainant received the repaired cell phone from the OP No.1 on full satisfaction after paying Rs. 1,645/- and thereafter the complainant never turned to the OP No.1 with any complaint regarding the cell phone. The complainant did not furnish any document to show that he returned the handset to the OP No.1 for repairing of his defective mouth speaker or he took back the handset from the OP No.1 after its repairing on 16.10.2014.

        From the above discussion we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove his case due to insufficient documents. 

                             Hence it is,

                                                O R D E R E D

that the case 6/S/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No. 1 & 3 and ex-parte against OP No.2 without cost.

                    Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.