Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

 None present.

(1)          This Consumer complaint regarding mobile hand set which according to Appellant/Org. Complainant was not satisfactorily repaired by Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 – Shri Uday Paranjpe of Nokia Care.  The mobile phone was purchased from Opposite Party No.2 - Shri Mahesh Kulkarni (Chaitanya mobile Shopee).  Complainant expected entire replacement of the mobile set.  However, Forum below directed Respondent to repair the same.  Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by original Complainant.

(2)          Today, in spite of notice of the date, Appellant/Complainant is absent.  We perused the record. 

(3)          In the instant case, the Company, i.e. manufacturing Company of the mobile set is not a party.  If any manufacturing defect warranting replacement of the mobile set is expected then Company ought to have been made a party.  As far as the service centre is concerned, they had repaired the mobile hand set and they had reportedly performed their part.  So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Respondent No.2 is mere mobile shop owner from whom the handset was purchased.  No service deficiency is alleged in the complaint against him.

(4)          Considering all these circumstances, what has been awarded by the Forum below cannot be stated as the one which is not proper and for which enhancement in the reliefs mentioned above could be claimed.  In the circumstances, we find the appeal devoid of any substance and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal stands dismissed in limine.

    (ii)       No order as to costs.