The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Managing Director, M/s. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, O.P No.2 is the Proprietor, M/s. Infotech Solution, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the Managing Director, M/s. Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvalluvar and O.P No.4 is the C.E.O, Amazaon World Trade Centre, Bangalore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant has purchased a Cell phone Lenovo K8 Note (Fine Gold, 4GB) / B071HWTHS5 (Lenovo-K8 Note-FGL-64GB) vide order No. 404-2662512-3832362, dtd.05.10.2017, Invoice No.MAA4-418853, Invoice Details: TN-MAA4-179184911-1718, Invoice dtd.05.10.2017 for Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only through Online, which was sold by the O.P No.3 and the said mobile was manufactured by the O.P No.1. The said mobile could not function within the twelfth month of its purchase, which was noticed on 10.09.2018 by the Complainant. So, the Complainant took the said mobile to the authorised centre i.e. the O.P No.2 and he could not solve the problem, for which the said mobile became unfit for use. Cause of action to file this case arose on 10.09.2018. The Complainant has prayed for directing the O.Ps to replace the Cell phone with a new one of the same description or to refund the price of the Cell phone i.e. Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only with interest to the Complainant.

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 for their appearance, but they have neither appeared nor filed their written version in this case. So, the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are set ex-parte.

                   4.  The O.P No.2 is deleted from this case.

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 have not filed any documents in their support. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of the alleged Cell phone for a price of Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only through Online and within the 12th month, when the said mobile could not function, the Complainant took the said mobile to the authorised centre i.e. the O.P No.2 (deleted from this case), who could not solve the problem, for which the said mobile became unfit for use. It has been further argued that the legal notices have been issued to all the O.Ps and the O.P No.1 has given the answer of it, which has no fruitful purpose. However, the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier and the O.P No.2 is deleted from this case. So, the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are outsiders and the O.P No.2 belongs to the jurisdiction of this Forum, which has already been deleted from this case. Thus, a question arises that whether this District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case in view of Section-11 of the C.P Act, 1986. But, in view of Revision Petition No.3289 of 2007 in the case of Sambit Mercentiles Pvt. Ltd. (Vrs.) Sanjeeb Kumar Chand, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that when part of cause of action arose, the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the instant case, part of cause of action arose at Balasore. So, this District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present case of the Complainant. However, the entire case of the Complainant remains unchallenged as the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. I also found no reasonable ground to disbelieve the allegation of the Complainant, for which the claim of the Complainant is to be allowed accordingly.

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I am in the opinion that the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable for replacement of the alleged Cell phone with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect and in case of failure, the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the alleged Cell phone i.e. Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum for the price of the alleged Cell phone from the date of order till realization. The Complainant has not prayed for any compensation amount and litigation cost. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 with cost. The O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to replace the alleged Cell phone with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect and in case of failure, the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the alleged Cell phone i.e. Rs.11,999/- (Rupees Eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum for the price of the alleged Cell phone from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps No.1, 3 & 4 to comply the Order.   

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 24th day of December, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.