1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a LAVA Mobile handset model iris alfa from OP.1 vide retail invoice No.634 dt.24.3.2015 for Rs.6400/- and found from the day one of purchase that the Power button, touch performance and storage of memory of the handset were giving bitter experience.  On complaint to OP.1, he advised to get the handset checked at Lava Care Centre at Jeypore and accordingly the complainant on 18.8.2015 handed over the set to said Lava Care Centre for repair.  It is further submitted that after repair the handset is still having the same problem and the complainant is facing a lot of hardship.  Thus alleging defective goods, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.6400/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.2 has sent its reply by Posts denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is guilty of not approaching the manufacturer of the product or authorized service Centre.  It is contended that the OP.2 is restricted only to marketing of the handset and the set was delivered to the complainant properly.  It is further contended that the complainant has neither deposited the defective set before the Forum nor has filed any technical report regarding the defect, in absence of which the present case is not maintainable against the OP.2.  It is also further contended that as there arose no cause of action against OP.2, the case against the OP.2 is not maintainable.  With these contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The OP.2 through its Advocate has sent counter through posts and no one participated in the hearing from its side.  Heard from the complainant through its A/R and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice issued by OP.1 vide No.634 dt.24.3.2015 in support of purchase of alleged handset for Rs.6400/-.  Hence the purchase of Lava handset manufactured by Lava International Ltd. is proved.  The case of the complainant is that from the date of purchase of handset, he noticed some defects in the handset and as per advice of OP.1 he handed over the set to Lava Care Centre at Jeypore on 18.8.2015 for repair.   The complainant has filed copy of job sheet dt.18.8.2015 issued by said ASC namely Laxmi Ganesh Mobile Care.  The ASC has received the handset with complaints Power Button problem, T.P. not working, touch screen defective and not working.  It is seen from the job sheet that the ASC has repaired the handset and the complainant has received it.  It is further the case of the complainant that after repair the handset is having same problems and he is facing a lot of hardships. 

5.                     The OP.1 in this case has neither filed counter nor participated in the hearing and as such remained exparte.  The OP.2 in his counter stated that he is having the job of marketing of the handset and in case of manufacturing defect; the complainant ought to have added the manufacturer as necessary party to this case.  The OP.2 further stated that the complainant has neither produced the defective set before the Forum nor any expert opinion has been filed to that respect.

6.                     The ASC run by manufacturer is being treated as expert in case of handset in question.  The ASC has received the handset and found the defects as stated above in the handset.  Hence it was ascertained that the handset suffered multiple defects. According to the complainant, in spite of repair the problems returned.  The complainant has also furnished the defective handset before the Forum at the time of hearing and we found the handset in mal-functioning condition.  In view of above facts, no further expert opinion in our opinion, is necessary to prove that the handset is a defective one.

7.                     The OP.2 further stated that he is at the marketing side of the Company.  The address given in the cause title is the Corporate Office of Lava International Ltd. and the same address is given by the Company in the container of the handset.  The Ld. A/R for the complainant submitted that this address is also found in the website of the Lava Company and hence OP.2 is the necessary party to this case.  The OP.2 further stated that he is neither the manufacturer nor the service provider.  It is crystal clear that the alleged handset is manufactured by Lava International Ltd.  The manufacturer was to display its address if it was other than the address of their Corporate Office.  By giving this address, in our opinion, the Company should not come to this case as an ordinary litigant.  The OP.2 should have disclosed the name and address of the manufacturer. The poor consumer does not have any scope to know the arrangements made between the corporate office and the manufacturer as they belong to same company.  As such the OP.2 cannot disown the liabilities in the name of marketing and hence is liable for the inconvenience faced by the consumers.

8.                     From the above discussions, it was ascertained that the handset manufactured by Lava International Ltd and purchased by the present complainant is a defective one and in our opinion the complainant should not make him suffer with the defective handset of the Ops and is entitled to get back the cost of the handset in lieu of defective one with due interest.  OP No.1 being the dealer of the product is also liable for the sufferings of the complainant as he earns profit out of sale of the handset. Further due to defective handset of manufacturing nature, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OPs being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.6400/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.3.2015 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)