1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Nokia Lumia 520 handset with IMEI No.358995051862752 vide Invoice No.1845 dt.01.11.2013 for Rs.10, 000/- from OP.1 and after one month of its use the set was found hang problem repeatedly to which the OP.2 being the ASC attended and brought the set into order with brief repairs.  It is submitted that during April, 2014 the complainant noticed low battery backup and there was no power switch on in the handset and the set was handed over to OP.2 for the defects who issued job sheet accordingly.  As per advice of the OP.2, the complainant approached him after a week to take back the repaired handset but the OP further advised to come after one month as the handset is yet to be received from the higher centre.  It is further submitted that on 27.8.2015 the OP.2 demanded the cost of mother board of the handset and as the complainant did not agree to pay any cost of repair, the OP.2 did not give the handset to the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.10, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01.11.2013 and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 & 3 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to file counter or participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 filed counter admitting the receipt of alleged handset from the complainant through Job Sheet No.701506886/140425/1 and contended that he had sent the handset to the Company for higher verification but the handset was declared warranty void by the Company.  The OP further contended that he is no more an Authorised Service Centre of the Company due to non renewal of agreement with Nokia and Microsoft.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant and OP.2 have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  We have perused the documents for orders on merit.

4.                     In this case the complainant stated that the Nokia Lumia 520 handset purchased by him on 01.11.13 became hanging repeatedly and the OP.2 had attended the defects and brought the set into order with brief repairs.  It is further stated that during the month of April, 2014 the complainant found that the set is not giving proper battery backup and power switch on in the handset and the set was handed over to OP.2 on 23.4.2014 for the above problems through job sheet.  The case of the complainant is that the OP.2 took time after time to repair the set and on 27.8.2015 the OP.2 demanded the cost of mother board.  As the complainant did not agree, the OP.2 did not give the repaired handset to the complainant.

5.                     The OP.2 in his counter stated that he had sent the set to the Company who declared the warranty of the set void since charging section burnt.  The OP also stated that he is no more the ASC of the Company now.   From the pleadings of both the parties it was ascertained that the handset after one month of its purchase was found hanging repeatedly and the OP.2 was repairing. Although no job sheet is filed by the complainant but the OP.2 in his counter never challenged the above allegations of the complainant.  Hence it can be concluded that after one month of purchase, the handset was giving defects repeatedly and the OP.2 was repairing the handset.

6.                     Admittedly the OP.2 received the set on 23.4.2014 for the defects “Power does not switch on and battery problem” and the handset was stated to be sent to higher centre for repair.  It is also an admitted fact that till 27.8.2015 the OP.2 had not handed over the repaired set when he demanded cost of mother board to the complainant.  As such the OP.2 took near about 16 months time to repair the set, the reason for such inordinate delay has not been briefed in the counter.  The OP.2 further stated that the handset of the complainant was declared warranty void by the Company due to charging section burnt but failed to furnish any report of the Company for our perusal that the charging section of the handset is burnt.

7.                     A simple say will not do.  The OP.2 must show the reasons as to why he kept the set for 16 months in the guise of repair and produce necessary report in support of his contention that the Company declared warranty void to the set of the complainant.  In absence of above evidence it can be easily concluded that the handset gave multiple defects during warranty period but the Ops 2 & 3 could not bring the set into order as per warranty condition.  By not doing so, in our opinion, the Ops have committed deficiency in service for which the complainant suffered.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase as he prayed for.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops for 16 months, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and also has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in his favour will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 2 & 3 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.10, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01.11.2013 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this orders.

(to dict.)