Complainant Pradip Kumar filed this complaint for direction to exchange the defective mobile set or replace the internal broken screen without cost and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-.

2          The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased GSM–Intex Aqua Ace mobile on payment of Rs. 10,000/- in total on 13.02.2016 including the cost of Rs. 9,523.81/-, from O.P. No.1 Sri Ram Enterprises who is authorized dealer of O.P. No.2 M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. The O.P. No.1 assured that this mobile phone is having Gorilla Glass in both the sides which will neither be broken or damage on fall and in case of any damage, mobile is insured for one year and it will be replaced free of cost.

            On 01.04.2016 complainant after using the mobile and kept in safe place, when he was keeping the mobile a call was coming , the call could not be received as the screen of the mobile set showing spotted light over the screen and it became functionless.

            The complainant went to the authorized dealer who advised to get the mobile checked to O.P. No.3 authorized service centre. Complainant approached with retail invoice to O.P. No.3 who asked for payment of Rs. 3,260/- for replacement of screen. Complainant objected since the mobile is within warranty period and covered under the insurance, so he is not going to pay but O.P. No.3 refused. Complainant again visited to O.P. No1 the dealer who told he cannot do anything and service centre will look into the matter.

            The complainant sent legal notice on 07.04.2016 but non has replied. Again O.P. No.3 called the complainant but refused to change the screen and this is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. hence this case has been filed.

3          The following documents have been filed by the complainant in support of his claim:-

Anx-1 Copy of the Retail Invoice dt. 13.02.2016

Anx-2 Copy of the Warranty Card.

Anx-2/1 to 2/3, 2/4 Copies of the guide lines and box showing free insurance

Anx-3 Copy of legal notice.

4          O.P. No.1 M/s Sri Ram Enterprises appeared and filed W.S. It is admitted he sold a mobile set to the complainant he is not liable for any defect and it is upto the service centre of the manufacturer O.P. No.2 to repair of any damage within one year of purchase but no new mobile can be given and therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.

5          O.P. No.2 and 3 jointly appeared and filed W.S. It is submitted that there is no cause of action and it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that there is no violation of terms of the warranty service and referred the law Shiv Prasad Paper Industry vrs. Sr. Machinery Co. 1 (2006) CPJ 92NC and it is held “ an equipment or machinery cannot be order to be replaced if can be repaired” hence there is no deficiency and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

F I N D I N  G S

6          We perused the record and hold that complainant is a consumer because the complainant has paid money for mobile set under the 12months warranty and the dispute is a consumer dispute.

7          On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant we are of the view that the O.P. No.3 and 2 both are liable for violation of the terms and the warranty which is deficiency in service.

            The law cited by the O.P. No.2 and 3 cannot be applied in case of mobile set since it is not a machine. The copy of the law has not been filed for detail perusal. Therefore, the O.Ps. have to replace the damaged screen or replace the mobile set if any manufacturing defect is major.

8          Accordingly we allow the claim and direct the O.P. No.2 and 3 to replace the broken screen of the mobile set of the complainant free of cost since it was under the warranty period.

            O.P. No.2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/- (Rs. three thousand) only for mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand) only to the complainant.

            All the payment must be paid within 60 days of this order.

            Complainant is at liberty to produce his mobile to O.P. No.3 for repair of the damage screen for free of cost within this period and if O.P. No.3 again refuse to replace the damaged screen in that case, O.P. No. 2 shall be held liable for unfair trade practice and shall have to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) only as penalty to the complainant, if any refusal by O.P. No.3 brought to the notice of the Forum.