For Complainant : Self
For OP No.1 : None
For OP No.2 : Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate and associates.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that a Samsung handset bearing Sl. No.RZ8HBIMIVXL, Model No.8M-A910FZDDINS, IMEI No.352944080972816 has been purchased by one Sri Sanjib Kumar Rout on 31.12.2016 for Rs.32, 500/- and the present complainant has purchased the said handset from Sri Rout on 22.09.2017 on due sale consideration. The complainant submitted that within its warranty period, the handset developed blank display and screen sparking for which he approached OP.1 (ASC). As per advice of OP.1 the complainant deposited Rs.2030/- on 23.12.2017 towards extended warranty as the original warranty of the set was going to be exhausted on 31.12.2017. The handset was received by OP.1 for repair but after repeated approach the OP.1 with different pleas has not returned the handset with proper repairs under warranty. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to return the handset with proper repair under warranty and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence remained exparte. The OP No.2 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.2 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. 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 complainant and the A/R for the OP.2 and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case, purchase of Samsung handset bearing Sl. No.RZ8HBIMIVXL, Model No.8M-A910FZDDINS, IMEI No.352944080972816 purchased by one Sri Sanjib Kumar Rout on 31.12.2016 for Rs.32, 500/- and the present complainant has purchased the said handset from Sri Rout on 22.09.2017 on due sale consideration is an admitted fact in view of the Money Receipt issued by Sanjib Kumar Routin favour of the present complainant. The complainant stated that within warranty period he found defect like “Blank Display and Screen Sparking” in the handset. The complainant contacted OP.1 who advised to deposit Rs.2030/- with the Company towards extended warranty since the original warranty of the set was to be expired on 31.12.2017. The Complainant stated that he deposited the amount of Rs.2030/- on 23.12.2017 vide Receipt No.420 and handed over the set to OP.1 for repair but the OP.1 is not returning the handset with proper repair.
6. It is seen from the record that the complainant has purchased the set from Sanjib Kumar Rout on due consideration and also has obtained every rights on that handset. From this fact, Sri Rout has no ownership over that handset w.e.f.22.09.2017.
7. It is seen that the complainant has submitted the handset before the OP.1 on 23.12.2017 and the OP.1 has received the set for repair with fault “Blank Display and Jhilmil). The OP.1 has issued job sheet dt.23.12.2017 in respect of handset in question in favour of the complainant, the copy of which is available on record.
8. The OP.2 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. In this regard we are of the opinion that the OP.1 is the Authorised Service Centre of the OP.2 Company, armed with all technical persons to provide after sale service to the customers on behalf of the Company. The complainant has approached the OP.1 who after keeping the handset with it has issued job sheet in favour of the complainant for repair but till filing of this case has not returned the set with proper repair. The problem in the handset which has been indicated as “Blank Display and Screen Sparking) in the job sheet is a major problem for which the handset is not working at all. It is also seen that the present complainant is the second owner of the handset and as per law second owner can file complaint if any defect noticed by him on goods and services but after due permission from the 1st owner. In this case it has done so. The hand set also gave problems during 1st warranty period of one year. Non return of handset with repair by Ops amounts to deficiency in service.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the handset sold by OP.2 has got inherent manufacturing defect as it did not function within few months of its purchase. As such the present complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.32, 500/- without any interest, compensation or cost since he is a second purchaser.
10. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.32, 500/- only towards cost of the handset to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order.
(to dict.)
