JUDGMENT

                                                                  As Per Hon’ble Sri Rajnish Kumar, Member.

1.  Case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased a new mobile phone Carbon A12+ from O.P No.-1 on 06.11.2013 (invoice date) bearing IMEI No.- 911305401933151 & 911305402035654. Within six month after purchasing, complainant found that mobile is not working properly & satisfactorily. Hence, lodged a complaint with O.P No-2 and job sheet is attached as Annexure-2 has mentioned the problem that SIM network & back camera is not working. Later, Complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. O.P No-2 several times to receive the handset but the mobile has not been delivered to the complainant on the pretext that the defect developed in mobile is still not been removed. Hence, this complaint before this commission.
2. Upon notice of this complaint, O.P no.-1 appeared and filed written version as well as W.A. It is stated in W.S that since O.P No.-1 is online reseller & grievance related to the complainant is pertaining to manufacturer’s warranty. Hence, complainant is bad for mis- joinder to this party. Further it is prayed that complaint is only liable to be dismissed in limine against O.P No.-1.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, no one appeared on behalf of O.P No-2. Hence commission debarred to file W.S & finally commission decides ex-parte hearing against O.P No-2.
4. The main point for consideration in this case is that as to whether the O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service as mobile hand set under warranty has not been repaired & returned to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for?

                                             FINDINGS

5. We have heard the complainant as well as O.P-01 represented through their Ld. Counsels. Both parties argued almost the same as we have briefed the matter aforementioned.
6. Having heard the rival contentions of both the sides as well as on perusal of the record, it appears that within warranty period complainant handed over his handset to O.P No-2 and job sheet was given to complainant where network and back camera was not working & it has been mentioned in the job sheet.
7. It is admitted fact that under warranty complainant handed over handset to O.P No-2 for resolving the problem as it is very clear from job sheet and also it is admitted that complainant bought handset from O.P No-1 and problem occurs within warranty period. We find that O.P No-1 is only seller & there is no role related to product. Hence, there is no role for resolving the problem under warranty.
8. This commission has given multiple opportunities to O.P No-2 to appear & submit his W.S and argue before the commission but it all went in-vain, ultimately, the commission decided to debar from submitting W.S and then decides ex-parte hearing. Since complainant has visited several times to O.P No-2 but neither his mobile phone was repaired nor his defective phone was handed over to the complainant. Since, O.P No.02 is authorized service center and it is working on behalf of product manufacturer. Definitely, product manufacturer and customers are paying for services to him and it can’t escape from responsibilities. Hence it is responsibility of authorized center also to redress the grievances of customer on time and satisfy with services. After notice, neither OP-02 appeared nor submitted his reply which shows that O.P-2 has to say nothing.
9. Taking into account of facts & circumstances of the case I am constrained to hold that only O.P No-2 is liable for deficiency in service without any valid reason and here, there is no role of O.P No-1.
10. Hence, in view of above said findings it therefore hereby,

                                                           Ordered

11. That the present consumer complaint is allowed & O.P No-2 is directed to return the handset in working condition without any defect or refund the cost of the handset and sum of Rs 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him during last 10 years pendency of this case plus a sum of Rs 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
12. All the above said amount must be paid by O.P No-2 within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order without fail otherwise the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the payable amount through the process established by law U/s 71 of C.P Act,2019.
13. Let a copy of this order be served/sent to the parties free of cost.
14. O.P No-1 is discharged from this case.