The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Shreeji Electronics represented through its Proprietor, Fakir Mohan Golai, Beside Telephone Bhawan, Balasore, O.P No.2 is M/s. Pradhan Electronics, Station Chhaka, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Chairman, Micro Max, Micro Max House, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                    2. Succinctly put, the brief facts which are material to the case are that the Complainant had purchased one mobile Micromax Bolt (AD 4500) under IMEI No.911388251206350 from O.P No.1 for Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) on 03.01.2015 and obtained a receipt. The above said mobile had gone out of order because of sound disruption and defect in touch screen in the month of May, 2015 and the O.P No.2 repaired the same. Again on 21.07.2015, the said mobile became defective such as audio not incoming and display touch screen not working, thereby the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 for repair or replacement of said mobile and the O.P No.2 on receipt of the same returned to the Complainant on 22.08.2015 after repair. Thereafter, the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 for repair of his defective mobile (display touch screen) on 24.08.2015, which the O.P No.2 handed over to the Complainant on 16.10.2015 after repair. Again the same defect was noticed by the Complainant on 16.11.2015 and as such, the Complainant produced the mobile set before O.P No.2. The O.P No.1 and 2 are not taking any care for replacement/ repair of the said mobile in spite of series of complaint made by the Complainant. The Complainant had issued a notice to O.P No.3 through his Advocate for replacement of said mobile, but the same was not replaced by neither of the O.Ps as per warranty conditions, which amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps. The prayer of the Complainant is for replacement of the said mobile with a new mobile along with compensation for mental agony.      

                    3. The O.P No.1 neither appeared nor filed his written version, even after receipt of notice, so the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte.

                    4. Written objection filed by the O.P No.2 through his Advocate, where he has denied about maintainability as well as about its cause of action. The O.P No.2 has further admitted that the Complainant produced his mobile set on 21.07.2015, 22.08.2015, 24.08.2015, 16.10.2015 and on 16.11.2015, but for the month of May, 2015 (when the mobile first gone out of order), the record is silent in the matter. The Complainant had deposited the said defective mobile before O.P No.2 and the O.P No.2 found that the mobile was tampered and spare parts of the mobile were dislocated and accordingly, advised the Complainant to come with relevant paper, but the Complainant did not turn up and repaired it by other. But on 21.07.2015, the Complainant had come to O.P No.2 along with defective mobile, which the O.P No.2 repaired as per request of the Complainant and after taking approval of the Company though the said mobile was repaired by others. The O.P No.2 sent the defective mobile to the Company obtaining permission from the Customer, while spare parts are not available with him for such repair, because it takes some time to be repaired. And accordingly, the O.P No.2 sent the said defective mobile set to the Company as per approval of the Complainant and repaired mobile was received by O.P No.2 on 22.12.2015. On receipt of the repaired mobile, the O.P No.2 immediately called upon the Complainant over his mobile phone available with him, but the Complainant denied to receive the same and threatened the worker of O.P No.2 with a filthy language that he has already taken legal action against the Company. Hence, there is no negligence or no dexlection on the part of Company and also O.P No.2. The O.P No.2 as per consideration by the Company has repaired the said mobile set under the warranty without cost, though the said mobile set has already been lost its warranty from the beginning. In fact, the mobile is ready for use. The O.P No.2 appeared through his Advocate and filed written version in this case, but he has not taken part in hearing as his Advocate remained absent on the date of hearing.    

                   5. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.P No.3, he         has neither appeared in the case nor has filed his written version, hence O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.

                   6.  In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law.

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case.

(iii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the Complainant.

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    7. In order to substantiate their pleas, the Complainant has filed       certain documents as per list in his support, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any document in their support. Perused the documents filed. The xerox copy of retail invoice discloses that the alleged mobile was purchased by the Complainant on 03.01.2015 for the total price of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) from O.P No.1 having warranty 6/12 months. It has been argued by the Advocate for Complainant that in spite of several repair of the same mobile set for its defects by O.P No.2, the defects were not completely removed causing inconvenience to the Complainant for use of the mobile set. Lastly on 16.11.2015, the Complainant produced the mobile set before the O.P No.2 for its repair. But, O.P No.1 and 2 are not taking any care for replacement or repair of the same mobile set, for which he was compelled to issue Advocate notice and when not complied, filed this case in this Forum praying to replace the said mobile set with compensation. But, no warranty card has been produced by the Complainant before the Forum and no explanation for him for non-production of the same. But, the copy of the job-sheets filed by the Complainant issued by O.P No.2 discloses that the mobile set was within warranty period. The O.P No.2 though filed written version did not take part in hearing and there is no argument from his side. However, his written version discloses that he has taken all possible cares for repair of the said mobile set and on several occasions by him and also by the O.P No.3-Company by sending the same mobile set to the Company and after receiving the same from the Company after repair. Thereafter the Complainant was intimated to take the same mobile, but he did not receive. But, such facts have not been substantiated by any material particulars as the O.P No.2 has not taken part in hearing. So, plea of the O.P No.2 is not materially substantiated. So, we found no reasonable ground to believe his plea. Regarding deficiency of service from the material shows that when the mobile set was not properly functioning within the warranty period and repair was not solved any fruitful purpose, it clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.       

                   8.  So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to replace the same mobile with a new mobile set of similar description which shall be free from any defect within the said price rate of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) or in the alternative, to return the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) for deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps to the Complainant and the O.Ps are jointly or severally liable for the same and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-    

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.P No.2 and on ex-parte against the O.P No.1 and 3 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly or severally directed to replace the same mobile with a new mobile set of similar description which shall be free from any defect within the said price rate of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) or in the alternative, to return the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 25th day of July, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.