1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased a Sony X Pesis Mobile set bearing IMEI No.35445705 2189390 from OP.1 for Rs.11, 500/- vide Cash Memo No.33929 dt.11.8.14 and the set did not function properly right from the date of purchase.  It is submitted that the complainant during the month of October, 2014 approached OP.2, the Authorized Service Centre (ASC) of the handset but the said OP.2 expressed its inability to attend the repair stating that the manufacturing of the said handset has been stopped long back and for said reason the benefit of warranty cannot be extended.  The complainant has contacted the OP.1 over phone but to no result.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the forum to direct the Ops either to replace the set with a new one of latest model or to refund Rs.11, 500/- towards the cost of the set and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter on behalf of all the Ops denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about sale of alleged Sony handset to the complainant by the OP.1.  It is contended that the OP.3 provides warranty for one year on its product from the time of its original purchase but the complainant in this case has never approached the ASC of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. with any defect whatsoever with respect to the handset and this case has been filed just to harass the Ops.  It is further contended that on 24.8.2015 the Ops sent a letter to the complainant stating that the Ops are unable to trace any fact as to when the complainant approached the ASC and requested the complainant to get handset inspected at the nearest ASC of OP.3 so that the Ops can render necessary service support but the complainant failed to do so.  Thus denying any manufacturing defect in the handset and denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed original Retail Invoice along with affidavit in support of his case.  The Ops filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case purchase of Sony X Peria handset bearing IMEI No.354457052189390 on 11.08.2014 by the complainant from OP No.1 is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that after 2 months of purchase of handset it did not function properly for which he approached OP.2 during October, 2014 but the OP.2 denied to give any service as the manufacturing of the said handset has already been stopped long back and benefit under the warranty cannot be given for the said reason.

5.                     The Ops stated that the complainant has never visited the Ops for repair of the handset and has come with a false case to the Forum.  The Ops further stated that on 24.8.2015 they sent a letter requesting the complainant to get the handset inspected at the nearest ASC.  It is seen from the record that no copy of their letter dt.24.8.2015 has been filed by Ops for our perusal.  The allegation of the complainant that the OP.2 did not attend the handset as the production of the said handset is already stopped, has not been duly challenged by the Ops.

6.                     In this case no independent affidavit has been filed by the OP.2 contending that the complainant has never approached him for repair of the handset. The Ops stated that they have sent letter on 24.8.2015 requesting the complainant to approach the nearest ASC so that they can render necessary service support.  No copy of said letter has been filed by the Ops in order to substantiate their stand.  So we hardly believe this averment of the Ops.  If the Ops were so interested to render necessary service support to the complainant, who restrained them, particularly the ASC at Jeypore (OP.2) to approach the complainant at his address to pacify the dispute.  In the retail invoice of OP.1, the contact number of the complainant is also available.  After sale of the product, the Ops including the manufacturer forget about the customer and the service attached to the product as well as humanity.  The complainant could have been contacted after filing of this case.  The OP.1 after sale of the handset earned profit and remained silent. The OP.2 being the ASC washed his hands stating that the production of the handset has been stopped.  No concrete steps have been taken by the OPs after filing of this case.  In the above situation, a consumer is to suffer but not the privileged groups.

7.                     The complainant has filed affidavit stating that he has visited the ASC but was deprived of getting any service.  No affidavit is filed by the ASC to counter the contents of the affidavit of the complainant.  Hence it can be concluded that the complainant has visited the service centre of OP.3.  If the production of that set has been stopped, the liability of Ops does not end.  By purchasing the set the complainant has not made any mistake and he is entitled to get proper service from the Ops.  By not providing proper service, the Ops have committed serious deficiency in service and the complainant is suffering till date.  As such the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest from the date of purchase in lieu of defective handset as he was debarred from getting any utility from the handset.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for except a sum of Rs.1000/- towards costs.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.11, 500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.8.2014 in lieu of the defective set and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)