1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that on 28.03.2017 he purchased one Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. Samsung J7 Prime IMEI No. 354741/08/469652/6 & 354742/08/469652/4 and paid Rs. 16,000/- vide retail invoice no. 2969 dated 28.03.2017 alongwith warranty certificate and 25 days after its purchase, the handset showed some defects for which he did not get its utility.It is alleged that in the month of June, 2017 he reported the defects of the mobile to the O.P.No.1 and as per his advise, he handed over the said mobile to the O.P. No. 1 and after 20 days, the O.P. No. 1 returned the said mobile.Further the allegation of complainant is that after some days, the said mobile showed the same defects alognwith some additional defects, for which he again approached the O.P.No.1, who expressed his inability to rectify the same and disclosed about its manufacturing defect.Thus, with other submissions, showing the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a pray to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile handset and Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 received the notice from this Fora and filed his counter denying the allegations of the Complainant stating that he has never sold any mobile to the Complainant and with other contentions, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P.No.2 represented through their authorized representative who appeared in this case, filed their counter denying their liabilities with the contentions that since the complainant has not filed any expert opinion report as required u/s 13(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of the defects occurred in the alleged handset, as such there is no unfair trade practice on their part.  Further they have contended that the alleged products was purchased by the complainant after being satisfied with its performances, which was put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market and since the complainant has not approached them at any time, as such denying their liabilities with other contentions they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his allegations.  On the other hand, the O.Ps have not filed any single document in support of their contentions and also never challenged the documents filed by the complainant.
    
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged Samsung Mobile handset from O.P.No.1 bearing Model No. Samsung J7 Prime IMEI No. 354741/08/469652/6 & 354742/08/469652/4 and paid Rs. 16,000/- vide retail invoice no. 2969 dated 28.03.2017 alongwith warranty certificate.  It is also not disputed that by the O.P.No.2 that after using the said mobile handset for about 25 days, the handset showed some defects, for which the Complainant approached the O.P.No. 1 for its repair and the said submissions of complainant has never challenged by the O.Ps., rather, the version of O.P. No. 1 makes the present dispute very much controversial and so also the O.P.No.1 totally denied that he has not sold any mobile to the Complainant, as alleged by the Complainant.
    
6. Further to make it clarify, we have gone through the documents filed by the Complainant and found that the Complainant has purchased the alleged mobile handset from the O.P. No. 1 vide bill no. 2969 dated 28.03.2017, which is also clearly established from the submissions of the Complainant at the time of hearing.  From the retail invoice issued by the O.P. No. 1, it is clearly proved that the O.P. No. 1 has sold the alleged mobile handset to the Complainant, but only to avoid his liability he has taken a false plea stating that he has not sold any mobile to the Complainant, which, we feel that the O.P. No. 1 is having malafide intentions to misguide the Hon’ble Fourm and the same version of O.P. No. 1 cannot be accepted at any angle.
    
7. Further as per the versions of O.P. No. 2, it is found that the alleged mobile might have processed through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for despatch to the market, but they have never challenged regarding the defects, if any, occurred in the alleged mobile handset, rather they have only demanded the expert opinion report from the Complainant.  And also they have not made any comments on the versions of the O.P.No. 1.  Though the O.P. No. 2 strictly challenged the said facts contending that neither the Complainant nor the O.P. No. 1 have intimated about the said defects of the alleged mobile handset to them, as such the defects in the alleged handset are not in their knowledge, otherwise they could have rectified the defects found out by the Complainant.
    
8. Further the counter versions of O.P. No. 1 makes it crystal clear that the O.P. No. 1 being the authorized seller of the O.P.No. 2 has misguided the Hon’ble Forum by stating that he has not sold any mobile to the Complainant, which is a corrupt practice of selling the product of the O.P.No. 2.  Being the manufacturer, it is the duty of the O.P. No. 2 prior to submit their versions, they should have at least once to go through the version of O.P.No.1 and without doing so, the O.P.No.2 has taken plea asking for the expert opinion report from the Complainant, as such the plea of O.P. No. 2 cannot be accepted.  However, the O.P. No. 2 has admitted that the alleged product in dispute was manufactured by them which was sold by the O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant. The allegations of the Complainant regarding the fact that after some days of receipt the said mobile from the O.P.No.1, the said mobile showed the previous defect alongwith some additional defects, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing.  Though the O.P. No.2 have challenged the same but to make it contrary they did not choose to file any evidence to that effect, therefore, the allegations of Complainant is well established.Further, the adverse versions of O.P. No. 1 and his non participate in the hearing makes the allegations of Complainant strong and vital.
    
9. Further, the defects were occurred within the warranty period, though the alleged mobile handset was used for about 25 days, but such allegations of Complainant was strongly challenged by the O.P. No. 2 contending that they have never received any information regarding the defect of the alleged mobile from the O.P.No.1.  As such we feel, the alleged mobile handset was defective one sold by the O.P.No.1, for which, the alleged handset reiterated its original defects alongwith some additional defects, and such type of practice adopted by O.P.No.1 has clearly established the deficiency in service on his part.  Further it is well settled law that for any wrong act of its agent, the manufacturer is liable.
    
10. Further lying the said mobile handset for about two years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
    
    11.     Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the Complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the Complainant, as the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses.  Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order.      

                                                                                    ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. of Rs. 16,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 10 % per annum and  also to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant.  Further the O.P. No. 2 is at liberty to recover the compensation amount and costs of litigation from the O.P.No.1, if they desire to do so.  Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged defective mobile handset to the concerned person of the O.P.No. 2 at the time of complying the above order by the O.P. No.2.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2018.

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.