1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Spice Dual Core Android Phablet – Mi 504 handset being manufactured by OP No.3 and marketed by OP N.1 vide Invoice No. NITCDRH/DRH/05/2014/1828731 dt.13.5.2014 for Rs.5999/- and the set was received through courier from OP.1.  It is submitted that after few days of its use the set did not work properly with touch screen and audio problems for which as per advice of OP.3, the complainant handed over the set to OP.2 for repair vide service request dt.25.3.2015 and the OP.2 after one month returned the set without any repair and advised the complainant to contact with OP.1.  As per their arrangements the OP.2 issued DOA certificate on 25.3.2015 recommending replacement of the product with a new one.  It is further submitted that the complainant as per advice of OP.3, sent the handset with DOA certificate to OP.1 through DTDC courier on 27.4.2015 on payment of Rs.330/- but the OP.1 without entertaining the DOA, returned the handset to the complainant and set is lying unused with the complainant.  The complainant submitted that the Ops 1 & 3 have sold a defective set to the complainant which could not be repaired by their ASC and thus alleging defective goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.5999/- towards cost of the set with Rs.330/- towards courier charges and to pay Rs.70, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this case. It is contended that the OP.1 is the Vendor/Seller of the product under OP.3 and was required to timely delivery of original product for which the order was placed.  Accordingly the OP.1 delivered the product worth Rs.5999/- to the complainant in good condition to which the complainant received on 17.5.2014 and hence committed no deficiency in service.  It is further contended that the complainant as per advice of OP.3 submitted the said product with OP.2 and the DOA certificate was issued by OP.2 against defective product.  The complainant has informed OP.1 about DOA and the OP.1 asked the complainant to share courier details but by the date the OP.1 received the courier details from the complainant, the consignment was returned RTO for which the complainant was again requested to send back the product but she remained silent.  The OP.1 also further contended that he is neither the manufacturer nor the authorised service centre of the product and hence Ops 2 & 3 are bound to provide after sale service to the complainant subject to  terms and conditions but not the OP.1.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The Ops 2 & 3 on being served neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence remained exparte.  The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The OP.1 also filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant as well as OP.1 through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice dt.13.5.2014 issued by OP.1 for Rs.5999/- in support of purchase of alleged handset which was a product of OP.3.  The complainant stated that he received the handset Spice Dual Core Android Phablet – Mi 504 through Courier and after using the same for some days, the set started giving touch screen and Audio problem for which as per advice of OP.3 he submitted the handset with OP.2, the ASC of OP.3 on 25.3.2015.  After one month i.e. on 24.4.2015 the complainant approached OP.2 to receive back his repaired set but the OP.2 without repair returned the set stating that the set is a defective one of manufacturing nature.  The complainant thereafter contacted OP.1 and as per their arrangements, the OP.2 issued DOA certificate dt.25.3.2015 for replacement of the product.  The complainant sent the product through DTDC Courier to OP.1 as per his advice on payment of Rs.330/- towards charges.

5.                     Due to willful absence of Ops 2 & 3 in this proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from them.  The OP.1 has also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The OP.1 has categorically stated in his counter that he is neither the manufacturer nor the ASC and hence the Ops 2 & 3 are liable if the complainant faces any difficulty due to mal-functioning of the product.  It is seen that the product of OP.3 which was sold to the complainant was marketed by OP.1 and the OP.1 has sent the product to complainant to Jeypore and has issued retail invoice.  Hence we have no doubt about the presence of OP.1 in this transaction.  Further the defective handset with DOA certificate has been sent to the OP.1 from Jeypore by the complainant.  Thus it can be easily concluded that some part of cause of action arose at Jeypore within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence this Forum assumes jurisdiction to entertain this case.

6.                     In this case, the complainant in consultation with Ops 1 & 3 has furnished the defective set with OP.2 for repair and the OP.2 without repairing the set issued DOA for replacement of the set which indicates manufacturing defect in the handset.  The OP.1 in his counter has admitted that the complainant informed him about DOA certificate issued by OP.2 against defective product and the complainant was asked by OP.1 to share DOA certificate details and also courier details for replacement of the set.  It is found from the counter of OP.1 that the complainant has shared courier details on 03.05.2015 and again on 14.5.2015 but the consignment returned to the complainant without delivery.

7.                     From the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it was ascertained that the set purchased by the complainant from the OP.1 and manufactured by OP.3 is a defective product for which it could not be repaired by OP.2 and finally DOA certificate was issued for replacement of the set but unfortunately it was returned without delivery at the merchant place and the set is lying with the complainant.  The non delivery of handset to OP.1 now became mystery.  As the set is proved to be a defective one, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.5999/- towards cost of the handset from Ops 1 & 3 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of defect.  Due to such defective product and return of product from OP.1, the complainant could not use the set to her satisfaction and must have suffered some mental agony for which she is also entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings we feel a sum of Rs.1500/- towards compensation and costs which includes courier charges in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 3 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.5999/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of defects noticed i.e. 25.3.2015 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.1500/- towards compensation and costs which includes courier charges of Rs.330/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)