1. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this complaint are  that the complainant  purchased a mobile phone make Sony Modal C-1904 on 14-02-2014 for a sum of Rs. 12,500/- and insurance of  Rs. 750/-.  As the phone was not functioning the complainant visited the OP2 (the authorized service center) but the mobile phone cannot be rectified by it.  The complainant prayed for the refund of the mobile handset praying that Ops be directed to refund the cost of the mobile handset,  Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Notice was issued to all the OPs.   OP1 served with notice and filed its reply.  OP2 and OP3 were served with notice but they did not enter appearance hence were proceeded with Ex-parte on 12-1-2016.  OP1 filed its written statement and denied  the allegations stated therein that OP1 is just a retailer and being a retailer he sold  the handset issued to the complainant and if there is any manufacturing defect in the handset he is not liable for the same. It is further stated that as stated by the complainant that he approached  to the service center twice but he did not attached single job sheet of authorised service center which assists that he approached the authrosied service center for rectification of the defective handset, therefore, OP2 is not the authorized service center of “Sony”.

3. Complainant filed its evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated  the facts stated in the complaint.

4. Heard  the complainant and perused the documents placed on file. As OP2  and OP3 did  not enter appearance and  OP1 also did not come forward to contest the  complaint of the complainant after filing its reply, the contents of which had been empathically denied by the complainant in his replication.   The complainant has placed on record copy of  the invoice of Rs. 12,500/- along with copy of the  protection plan and invoice of Rs 750/- paid in lieu of the insurance along with copy of the job sheet dated 8.1.2015.  OP1 has stated in its reply that OP2 is not the authorised service centre but it has not mentioned the name of the authorized service centre.  This fact has been specifically denied by the complainant in its replication.   As the allegations contained in the complaint followed by affidavit of evidence remained unrebutted, we have no other option but to hold all the Ops jointly and severally liable to make good the loss of the complainant.

5. We, therefore, hold that all the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,500/- (cost of the mobile phone ) to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to pay  a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of 30 days failing which an additional interest of Rs. 10% per annum will be payable on amount mentioned above  from the date of this order till payment to the complainant. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this.....................