1.                     The case of the complainant in nut shell is that he purchased one M. Tech G-9 Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911480201990308 from OP.1 for Rs.1400/- vide Invoice No.54 dt.08.09.2016 and within one month of its purchase, he was unable to hear the voice of the person calling from other side.  It is submitted that as per advice of OP.1, he approached OP.2, who is the Authorized Service Centre for the product on 27.9.2016 and the OP.2 attended the set with some charges.  After repairing, the complainant found that the same problem returned to the set for which he is suffering.  Thus alleging defective goods sold by the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to replace the defective set with a new one or to refund Rs.1400/- towards the cost of the handset and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence the matter was heard from the A/R for the complainant for orders basing upon the materials available on record.

3.                     In this case, the complainant has filed copy of Invoice vide No.54 dt.08.9.2016 issued by OP.1 in support of purchase of handset by the complainant.  He also filed copy of service job sheet No.1422 dt.27.9.2016 through which the alleged handset was repaired for hearing problem.  The ASC takes Rs.50/- towards checking of handset as mentioned in the job sheet.  From the above facts, it was ascertained that the handset purchased by the complainant had suffered hearing problem within a month of its purchase and the defect was noticed well within the warranty period.  The complainant further submits that after repair, the said problem returned and the set is lying unused.

4.                     In absence of counter and participation of the Ops in this case, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  It is certainly true that the complainant cannot go again and again to the service Centre by paying Rs.50/- each time for checking the handset within warranty period.  As the ASC could not bring the set into order, it can be easily concluded that the handset purchased by the complainant bears inherent manufacturing defect and hence he is entitled to get refund of the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase.  Further due to defective set sold by the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also has filed this case incurring some expenditure.  Hence he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.

5.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 being the manufacturer is directed to refund Rs.1400/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 08.09.2016 and to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this orders.

(to dict.)