The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant was considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was entitled to a refund due to the defective mobile handsets provided by O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2.

ORDER

R.S. Sharma, President

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6th November, 2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 226/2015. By theimpugned order, the District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that:

(a) The OPs will jointly or severally pay, within a period of one month from the date of the order, a sum of Rs. 9, 000 the cost of the mobile in question, along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7.5.2015 till realization.

(b) The OPs will jointly or severally pay a sum of Rs. 3, 000 (Rupees Three Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

(c) The OPs will jointly or severally pay a sum of Rs. 2, 000 towards Advocate Fees and cost of litigation, to the complainant.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the O.P. No. 1 is a company, who is selling the various products through internet and the O.P. No. 2 is manufacturer company of the mobile in question. On 22.1.2015, the complainant had purchased one mobile handset of Micromax Company from the O.P. No. 1, through internet. The Order No. was I.D.404/5197759-1692338 and Model No. was YUREKA - A05510. The cost of the above mobile handset was Rs. 9, 000. The complainant chose option for payment in respect of the mobile handset and requested to send the same to residence of his friend Manoj Kumar Yede, situated at Changorabhata, Raipur (C.G.). Within 5 to 6 days of the date of order, the O.P. No. 1 sent the mobile handset in the address of Manoj Kumar Yede and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 9, 000 in cash to the person, who gave delivery. After receiving the mobile handset, when the complainant operated the mobile handset then he came to know that the sensor was not working and the battery wasbecoming discharged. In this regard, on next day, the complainant informed to the Customer Care of the O.P. No. 1 through telephone regarding the above problems, then Customer Care Executive told the complainant that the above problem is occurring because mobile software is not updated and after some time the new update of the above mobile handset will come and after updating the mobile handset, the above problem will be solved automatically. Accordingly, as per the assurance given by the Customer Care Executive, the complainant waited for software update of the mobile handset and when after some days, new software update came, then the software of the mobile handset of the complainant was updated, but in spite of updating of the software of the mobile handset of the complainant, the problem in the mobile handset is not cured. The Customer Care Executive told the complainant that he will replace the battery and on 2.2.2015, a new battery was provided to the complainant for mobile handset. After providing a new battery, problem in the battery came to end but in the mobile handset still there is problem in sensor, in respect of which the complainant again informed the Customer Care Executive, thenhe told the complainant that he will replace the mobile handset and will provide another mobile handset to the complainant and on 9.2.2015, another mobile handset was provided to the complainant. After receiving another mobile handset, when the complainant operated the same then he was surprised because in the second mobile also problems, which were existed in the first mobile, were also found in the new mobile handset. The complainant informed the Customer Care Executive regarding the same then he told that he will provide another mobile handset and on2.3.2015, another mobile handset was given to the complainant. When the complainant operated the new mobile handset which was sent by the O.P. No. 1, it came to know that the above mobile handset was of dual sim, but only one sim was functioning and in the second sim, network was not functioning. The complainan