This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; complainant appeared inperson and Opposite parties No.1 to 3 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Intex Aqua Style Pro-59651 Model Cell Phone on 06-11-2014 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2 for Rs.6,200/- with 1 year warranty.  From the date of purchase, it started giving troubles and not functioning properly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for rectification of defects, after observation of mobile, the opposite party No.1 stated that the mobile has software problem.  The complainant further submitted that even after making many rounds for about 6 months, the opposite parties did not respond either to rectify the defects or to replace the mobile with new one, finally, advised to approach service centre for rectification of defects.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on 03-11-2015 and kept the mobile with it for repairs.  The opposite party No.3 assured that it will return the mobile within one week but failed to hand over the same, for which, the complainant making many rounds for about 20 times to the service centre of opposite party No.2 and as there was no response, addressed a letter dt. 19-08-2016 by requesting the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile with new one, though, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Having no other go, approached this Forum by praying to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile with new or refund Rs.6,200/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, expenses and costs.

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and exhibits                 A-1 to A-4.

4.      After registering the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 on 17-09-2016.  The notice of opposite parties No.1 and 3 were returned as refused.  Despite service of notice, the opposite party No.2 neither appeared nor filed its counter to counter blast the averments of complaint.

5.      In view of above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

According to the averments of complaint and material on record, it is a fact that the complainant had purchased Intex Mobile by paying Rs.6,200/- to the opposite party No.1 with a warranty of one year.  Within few days, it was started giving troubles, even after making frequent repairs, the problems, arose in the mobile were not rectified.  Further, it is the allegation of the complainant, within the period of warranty, he visited the opposite party No.1 frequently for rectification of defects.  And also alleged that the opposite party No.1 carelessly refused to rectify the defects, even failed to inform the address of service centre due to which, the complainant constrained to visit the opposite party No.1 frequently.   Finally, the opposite party No.1 informed the address of service centre of opposite party No.2 three days before completion of warranty, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot and also lost the free services within the period of warranty, in support of his case, the complainant filed exhibits   A-1 to A-4.    Exhibit A-1 is the purchase bill dt. 06-11-2014, according to which, the mobile has a warranty of one year till 05-11-2015 but as per Job card dt.03-11-2015, marked under Exhibit A-2 issued by the service centre of opposite party No.2, the said mobile has no warranty, which is objectionable and amounts to unfair trade practice.  As per Exhibit A-1  and A-2 the mobile in dispute was within in warranty at the time of attending the services of opposite party No.3 on 03-11-2015 and as such it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to provide free services to the complainant as assured.  With regard to the relief claimed by the complainant for replacement of mobile is concerned, as per complaint, the mobile in dispute is having software problem, but the opposite parties did not respond to replace the mobile after frequent repairs and failed to attend the Forum even after issuances of notices.  Moreover, the notices of opposite parties No.1 and 3 were returned as refused.  In view of the above circumstances the point is answered accordingly against the opposite parties by holding that the opposite parties are liable to replace the defective mobile with new one. 

6.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to replace the defective Intex Style Pro-59651 Model mobile with new one or to refund Rs.6,200/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 22^nd day of December, 2016.

                                                FAC President              Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

FAC President              Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.