1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Canvas Knight Cameo A 290 handset with I MEI No.911379252683269 from OP.1 for Rs.9300/- vide Invoice No.86 dt.25.2.2015 and after few months of its use the handset gave charging problem as the battery did not give proper back up and the complainant was unable to switch on the handset.  Hence on the advice of OP.1, the complainant approached OP.3, the Authorized Service Centre (ASC) of OP No.2 and handed over the set for repair on 22.6.2015.  After repair, the complainant used the set but after couple of days the complainant found the same problem in the handset as that of before.  It is submitted that the complainant for different problems has handed over the set to OP.3 but in spite of efforts, the OP.3 could not bring the set into order.  The complainant submitted that all the times the OP.3 has issued job sheets and now the handset is lying with OP.3 un repaired.  Thus alleging manufacturing defects in the handset, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to supply a new handset of same specification or refund its price besides Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 3 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that he has no knowledge about the purchase of alleged handset from OP No.1 by the complainant which is manufactured by OP.2 and hence the complainant is not a consumer.  It is contended that the OP No.1 has not intimated the sale of alleged handset and OP.3 has not intimated about the defect in the handset to OP No.2 and not a single correspondence is available to prove the case of the complainant.  Thus 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.  Heard from the A/Rs for the complainant and OP No.2 and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice vide No.86 dt.25.2.2015 of OP.1 in support of purchase of Micromax Canvas Knight Cameo A 290 handset EMIE No.911379252683269.  The case of the complainant is that after purchase of handset it gave low battery backup problem for which he handed over the set to OP.3 on 22.6.2015.  The OP rectified the defect and issued job sheet.  As the problem returned the OP.3 attended the handset on 03.7.2015 and issued job sheet.  On 06.7.15 the handset was again produced before the OP.3 for “power does not switch on” for which the handset was repaired and the OP issued job sheet.  It is further seen that on 13.7.15 the handset was produced before OP.3 for same low battery backup problem.  The complainant submitted that the OP.3 tried his best but could not rectify the defect and the handset is still lying with OP.3 un repaired.

5.                     This being the matter, the OP.2 through his counter stated that he has no knowledge about the purchase and repair of the handset.  The copy of retail invoice of OP.1 and copy of 4 job sheets of different dates issued by Op.3 clearly show that the complainant has purchased alleged handset and it required repair many a times within its warranty period and finally the OP.3 being the ASC of Micromax handset could not bring the set into order.  In the above premises, it can be safely held that the complainant is a consumer having been purchased the handset and the handset has got inherent manufacturing defect as it could not be repaired in spite of repeated attempts by the ASC and the handset is lying unused.  In absence of counter and participation of ASC-OP.3 we lost opportunity to know the reasons as to why the handset could not be repaired and still in his possession.

6.                     The complainant has invested Rs.9300/- but could not get any utility due to defects in the handset.  As such the complainant is entitled to get refund the cost of the handset from OP.2 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase.  Further the complainant has prayed for some compensation and costs for injuries sustained by him due to defective set sold to him by Ops 1 & 2.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost in favor of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to refund Rs.9300/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 25.2.2015 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  As the defective handset is with its own ASC, the OP.2 is further directed to collect the same from there.

(to dict.)