For Complainant              :      Self.

For OP No.1                    :      Self

For OP No.2                    :     None

For OP No.3                     :   Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate & associates.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung mobile handset IMEI No.351680091716583 Model J2 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.733 dt.23.10.2017 for Rs.6990/- but after one month of its purchase the handset became excess heat at the time of charging.  It is submitted that the complainant approached the ASC of Samsung Company at Jeypore to know the reason of excess heating of the handset and the ASC replied that the LCD is broken and it can be repaired on payment of Rs.3000/-.  Thereafter the ASC stated that replacement of LCD will be free of cost and they will send it to the Company.  The ASC issued job sheet and advised to send the handset to the Company but after repeated approach they did not return the handset with repair till filing of this case.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund the cost of the handset and to pay Rs.7000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the handset is within its warranty and if any defect noticed it is the duty of OPs 2 & 3 to rectify it.  The OP.2 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in any manner.

3.                         The OP No.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the handset purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market over a period of years.  Denying the allegation of manufacturing defect in the set, the OP.3 stated that no evidence has been furnished by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect in the handset.  The OP further contended that the complainant is put to strict proof of the fact that the handset has got major problem of manufacturing defect and if a consumer has genuine complaint, the Company has no problem in redressing the same.  It is contended that the ASC has sent the set to the Company for reppair under warranty. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                         The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  We heard from the A/R for the OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.

5.                         In this case, purchase of Samsung J2 Mobile handset bearing IMEI No. 351680091716583 for Rs.6990/- vide invoice No.733 dt.23.10.2017 from OP.1 which was manufactured by OP.3 are all admitted facts.  The complainant stated that after one month of purchase he found excess heating of the set while charging.  The complainant contacted ASC (OP.2) at Jeypore for its repair. The Complainant stated that he approached the ASC and who issued job sheet mentioning LCD broken.  The OP.2 advised the complainant that they will send the set to the Company for free replacement of LCD but on repeated approach they are not returning the set with repair.  

6.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant has purchased the set on 23.10.2017 and due to excess heating of the set has approached the ASC.  The ASC has issued job sheet reporting the fault as “LCD broken”.  The ASC has sent the handset to higher service centre but the ASC has not returned the set with repair till filing of this case.

7.                         The OP.3 in its counter stated that the complainant has not furnished expert opinion in the form of evidence to prove that the set suffers from manufacturing defect.  The ASC of the Company stated that the set LCD is broken.  In order to establish his case, complainant has not adduced any independent evidence in support of his case.  In this regard we are of the opinion that, the ASC is armed with Engineers and technicians and when they opined that the LCD is broken which means due to excess heating, the handset had got some inherent manufacturing defect and hence they have agreed to repair the set under warranty.

8.                         In the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the handset sold to the complainant which is the product of OP.3 was a defective one of manufacturing nature for which the LCD broken due to excess heating of the set.  As such the complainant is entitled for relief and we hold that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.6990/- towards cost the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase (23.10.2017) besides cost of this litigation.  Considering the circumstances of the case, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost will meet the ends of justice.  The defective set is with ASC as ascertained from record.

9.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 being liable is directed to refund Rs.6990/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 23.10.2017 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)