SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT,

            The synopsis of the complaint case is that he purchased a new Lenovo Model No K6NOTE IMEI No. 864001034480650 mobile phone at Rs. 13,500/- from the show room of the OP no 1 on 12.01.2017 with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase.  The complainant used the mobile smoothly but in the later part of March, 2017 ie after about two months only, said mobile frequently hanged and touch problem appeared every now and then. On 21.07.2017 the complainant handed over the set to the OP no.1 for servicing through the authorized servicing centre of the OP No.2 and after 7/8 days they returned the set by replacing the mother board of the set. But after a few days the set faced the same problem. It had been given for repair several times but the result is the same, the set is not functioning. The complainant alleges that in spite the warranty for one year, neither the OP no1 nor the OP no. 2 cared for cure the problem.

Hence, the instant case has been filed by the complainant  with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs .

Summons was issued upon both the OPs. The OP no. 1 appeared and contested the case by filing written version wherein he   claimed dismissal of the case against him on various grounds.

            The positive assertion of this OP no.1  is  that he is the only seller of the product of different companies including the OP no.2. All the liability of repair/replacement etc. is cast upon the manufacturer of the gadgets. They can only advice and give guidelines to the customers   in case of any problem faced by the customers for the sake of their business. In this case this OP accorded all the possible help for getting touch with the OP no. 2 for repair or replacement of the product which at best they could do. They have no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. As such this OP no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint case with cost for unnecessary harassment.

On such other grounds the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.

OP no. 2 did not turn up to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard and order is passed against the OP no. 2 ex parte.

            On the pleadings of the parties as above, the following issues need be considered (1) whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Perused the complaint, the written version of the OP no. 1 the affidavit in chief of the complainant and the OP no.1 and questionnaires and reply of the rival party. Perused the documents filed by the complainant. Heard the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for both sides.

In this case the OP no 1is the manufacturer of the mobile set who did not contest the case. The complainant admittedly purchased the  mobile set in question from the show room of the OP no.1 on 12.01.2017 at a cost of Rs. 13,500/- and warranty period of that set was for one year from the date of purchase.  The complainant produced the cash memo for purchase of the mobile set issued by the OP no1, the seller Kundu Electronics.  It appears that warranty period is for one year and it was the condition  of warranty  that at least two months will be taken for the repair of the mobile set from the Co and OP no. 1 is not liable for any manufacturing defect of the mobile set.

The complainant is depending on the Annexure I wherefrom it appears that OP no1 ha no liability after selling of the mobile set for any manufacturing effect and admittedly the complainant  handed over the defective mobile set to the Service Centre of the OP no. 1 through the OP no.1 on 21.07.17 which is established from the receipt No. 741 dated 21.07.2017 ( Annexure 2), issued by the OP no1 while taking over the defective mobile set from the complainant. After repair by the service centre of the OP no. 2 the set  was returned to the complainant after 7/8 days.  It appears from the Annexure I that the OP no. 1 gave condition  at the time of purchase of the mobile that at least one or two months  will be taken for reparing the mobile. So, the complainant’s allegation that after 7/8 days they returned the mobile  is of no use. 

The complainant filed affidavit in-chief to strengthen his case. He was cross-examined by the OP no.1 by putting questionnaires. The OP no1 also filed affidavit in-chief and he was also questioned by the complainant. Both of them relied to the questions put to each other.

Seen the affidavits and the reply thereof very carefully and considered.

It appears that  the OP no 2 did not contest the case in spite of receiving summons.

After considering the materials on record we are of the considered view that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question for which the OP no.1 could not be held liable. OP NO. 2  is liable  for the defect  of the mobile set within the warranty period and so,  the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs against the OP no. 2.

Both the points are answered accordingly.   

                        Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/47 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP no 1 without any order of cost and allowed  ex parte against the OP no 2. 

The OP No. 2 is hereby directed to replacethe defective mobile set within one month from the date of this order or to return the purchase value of Rs. 13,500/- to the complainant within the said period. If the OP no 2 fails to comply the aforesaid order, the OP no. 2 will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of purchase of the set till realization.

OP no. 2 is also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost within the stipulated period as aforesaid.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.