1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Gionee M3 handset bearing IMEI No.866924020049064 from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.1501 dt.22.7.2015 for Rs.11, 800/-       which is manufactured by OP No.3.  It is submitted that after 3 months of its use, all of a sudden the screen of the handset started thrilling and the entire screen became black and as such the set did not work.  The complainant handed over the set to OP.2; the Authorized Service Centre of the Company for repair and after a brief repair, the complainant received the set on payment of Rs.250/- to OP.2 who issued a job sheet.  It is further submitted that after one month of repair the problems returned with software problems like doubling of icons and if one icon is deleted by the complainant, the other icon of similar type also got vanished.  On approach to OP.2, he advised to come after one week but after one week, the OP.2 did not receive the handset and threatened the complainant not to come with this handset.  The handset is lying unused with the complainant.  Thus alleging inherent manufacturing defect in the set, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.11, 800/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.15, 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.  We have perused the materials available on record for orders on merit.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.

3.                     In this case, the complainant has furnished copy of Retail Invoice No.1501 dt.22.7.2015 for Rs.11, 800/- issued by OP.1 towards Purchase of Gionee handset bearing IMEI No. 866924020049064.  The complainant stated that after 3 months of its purchase suddenly the screen of the handset started thrilling and the entire screen became black leading to no use of it.  The ASC of the Company repaired the handset and issued job sheet on payment of Rs.250/-.  Secondly, after two months the problems returned with software problems like doubling of icons.  On deletion of one icon, other icon also vanished.  This time the OP.2 also repaired.  Thirdly, after 2 months of repair again the problems returned and this time the OP.2 did not agree to repair the handset and misbehaved the complainant.

4.                     In absence of Ops in this proceeding, the above allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  The complainant stated that the handset is lying unused.  After sale service is the duty of the OP.3 Company.  It is seen that the handset suffered multiple defects during warranty period and it was the duty of the Company and its ASC to repair and bring the set into order for comfortable use of the complainant.  Further after repair of the handset for couple of times, the defects returned and hence we feel that the handset suffers inherent manufacturing defects as it could not be repaired in spite of efforts by the ASC being the expert.  As such the complainant should not suffer with the handset manufactured by OP.3 and it certainly needs to refund the cost of the handset with interest from the date of purchase by the OP.3 to the complainant.  Further due to said defective handset, the complainant had to suffer for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost in his favour will meet the ends of justice.

5.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 Company is directed to refund Rs.11, 800/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.7.2015 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)