B.C.KANDPAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 129 of 2011, thereby allowing the consumer complaint ex -parte against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 (appellant and respondent No. 2 before this Commission) jointly and severally and directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 16,500/ - to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 16.08.2010, i.e., the date of purchase of mobile handset till payment; Rs. 10,000/ - towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/ - towards litigation expenses. It was observed by the District Forum that in case the amount is recovered by the complainant from the opposite party No. 3, the opposite party No. 3 will be at liberty to recover the said amount from the opposite party No. 1.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 16.08.2010, the complainant had purchased a Sony Ericsson Xperia U20i mobile handset from the opposite party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 16,500/ -. The said mobile handset was manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 is the authorised service centre of the company. The mobile handset carried a warranty of one year. Since the date of purchase, the mobile handset was not working properly and there was no battery back -up. The alleged defect was pointed out to the opposite party No. 3, who asked the complainant to go to the opposite party No. 2, the authorised service centre of the manufacturing company. On examination of the mobile handset, the opposite party No. 2 told that the battery is defective, which need to be replaced and also told that there is no battery in the stock. After a period of two months, on 30.10.2010, the opposite party No. 2 changed the battery. Even after replacement of the battery, the mobile handset did not work properly. The complainant again contacted the opposite party No. 2, who told that the matter has been referred to the opposite party No. 1 - manufacturing company. At that time, the complainant was informed that the mother board of the mobile handset is defective. When the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant after repairs, the complainant observed that the old problem was persisting in the mobile handset. On 10.02.2011, when the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 2 told to send the mobile handset to Chennai and also assured that the mobile handset would be received after repairs after a week, but the mobile handset was not delivered to the complainant. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum issued notice to the opposite parties, but none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties before the District Forum and, therefore, the District Forum proceeded the consumer complaint ex -parte against the opposite parties vide order dated 26.09.2011 and decided the same vide impugned order dated 29.11.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and have also perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex -parte against the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.;