1 .The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Micromax mobile set vide Mobile NO. BTY A 350 from the O.P. No.1 for a consideration of Rs.11, 999/- through internet. The O.PNo.1 has issued cash memo  vide invoice NO.2418 dtd.16.5.2015 .After use of two months the mobile set found defective  and the off and on switch does not function for which the complainant  could not use the same. The complainant has deposited the defective mobile set with the O.PNo2 on 30.7.2015 for rectification of defects. The O.PNo.2 has granted a job sheet to that affect in favour of the complainant. Though the O.PNo.2 received the aforesaid mobile set on 30.7.2015 he had delivered the same on 14.10.2015 after two and half months .Again after two days   of receiving the mobile set from the O.PNo.2 the battery fixed in the mobile set did not function at all. The complainant reported the matter to the O.P No.2 and accordingly the O.P No.2 has delivered the battery to the complainant. After that also the mobile was found defective in the previous problem again arise for which the complainant could not use the same could not use the same. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter before the O.P and when they could not take any steps he has filed this case before this forum for replace the new one or pay the cost of the mobile as it is found defective during the warranty period.

       2. After being noticed the O.P.No.1 could not appear in this case and set ex-parte.The O.P No. 2 and 3 appeared filed counter in this case. The case of the O.PNo.2    and 3 is that the case is not maintainable against them. The alleged complainant is one governed by the limited terms of contact of guarantee for which relief claimed beyond said terms is not maintainable. The allegation of the complainant is false and denied and in this way they pray for dismissal of the case. The O.PNo.2 also taken the same plea  but he admits that  that the complainant had been to the Micromax s care center on two occasion and on every occasion the O.P. rectified the mobile set.

     3. The complainant filed documents like Xerox copy of the receipt showing the purchase of the mobile set and also Xerox copy of the job sheet issue by the O.PNo.2.

      4.The point for determination of the case   whether the complainant is a consumer and  whether any deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice have been caused to the complainant by the O.Ps.

      5. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has purchased mobile for Rs.11,999/- and a receipt has been granted in favour of the complainant alongwith warranty card.  After two months the mobile set was found defective and also the O.P No.2 admits the same

          Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant documents filed by him so also submission made by the O.P.s we allow the case o the complainant in part and direct the O.PNo.3 to pay the price value of the mobile set Rs.11, 999/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred ninety nine) only to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The O.P No.3 is further directed to pay Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) only towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The case against the O.P No.1 and 2 is dismissed without cost.

     Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 15th day of September, 2016.