For Complainant : Sri S. K. Mohapatra, Advocate.
For Ops 1 to 3 : None.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LYF 7P handset vides IMEI No.RSN: RDNBTA 22061036 from OP.1 for Rs.5500/- vide Retail Invoice No.15575 dt.15.03.2017 but after 11 months of its purchase, the handset stopped functioning automatically. On approach, the OP.1 kept the set for 5 days and assured to replace the set with a new one but failed to do so. On approach to OP.2 he asked the complainant to pay Rs.2500/- towards cost of repair as the mother board is defective. It is submitted that the complainant was using the set cautiously but defect in mother board is the inherent manufacturing defect of the set for which the Ops are liable. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.5500/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.80, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. In spite of valid notice, the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence they remained exp-arte in this proceeding.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. Heard from the A/R for the complainant and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case purchase of handset LYF 7P bearing IMEI No. RSN: RDNBTA 22061036 by the complainant for Rs.5500/- from OP.1 is supported by copy of Retail Invoice No.15575 dt.15.03.2017. Hence the purchase of handset from OP.1 is proved. According to the complainant, he was using the handset carefully but after 11 months of its purchase it became non functional and hence he handed over the set to OP.1 who assured to replace it with a new one. As the OP.1 did not replace the set, the complainant approached OP.2 who demanded Rs.2500/- towards cost of mother board. The case of the complainant is that defect in mother board within warranty period is a manufacturing defect and the Ops are to replace the set with a new one.
5. In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding we have lost opportunity to know anything from them and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged. It is seen that the handset became defective within warranty period and according to OP.2 the mother board of the handset is defective. Mother board is a major component of a handset and if it does not work within warranty period, then it is to duty of the Ops to repair the set with good running condition. In this case, the OP.2 being the ASC of OP.3 demanded Rs.2500/- towards cost of repair. In our opinion demand of repair cost within warranty period is not good. The OP.2 was to issue job sheet showing the reason of defect. If it was coming within warranty condition, they are to repair the same. If the defect is due to mishandling of the set, it should be mentioned in the job sheet and the Ops should have come forward with their respective counters. By not doing so, the Ops remain in back foot. In the above circumstances, we carefully hold that the handset of the complainant bears manufacturing defect and the OP.3 being the manufacturer is to refund the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case. As we have awarded interest on the cost of the handset and the complainant has used the set for 11 months, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a cost of Rs.1000/-.
6. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.5500/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 04.06.2018 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
