For Complainant         :           Sri Brundaban Padhi, Advocate.

For OP No.1 & 2          :           None

For OP No.3                 :           Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate and associates.           

                                                            -x-

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung handset bearing IMIE No.356368/08/076334/6-4 from OP.1 vide invoice No.3111 dt.28.02.2017 for Rs.36, 900/- for his personal use but after one month of use, the complainant found set hang problem sometimes which in use.  It is submitted that during his visit to his native place at Visakhapatnam (VSP), the complainant approached M/s. Innovative Electronics, VSP which is an authorised service centre of Samsung Company and the said ASC on complaint carried out instant repair work and returned the set but after a few days of repair the hang problem returned along with a new problem of Auto Switch Of.  It is further submitted that during August, 2017, the complainant again approached the said ASC who executed repairs but after few days the problems return along with touch pad problem.  Again the set was handed over to the said ASC at VSP on 12.10.2017 that recorded “Touch Pad” problem and issued job sheet No.4247111108 but after repair the complainant found multiple problems in the set besides battery backup problem.  It is also further submitted that he approached OP.2 at Jeypore on 27.01.2018 for those multiple problems and the OP.2 tried to attend the faults and advised the complainant to contact the Company to get a new phone as the set has got its manufacturing defect.  The handset did not function after repair by OP.2 also.  Thus alleging defect in goods, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.36, 900/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.40, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.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.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

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

4.                     In this case, purchase of Samsung handset bearing Sl. No.RZ8J21MNHFN, Model No.SM-C900FZDDINS, IMEI No. 356368/08/076334/6-4 by the complainant for Rs.36, 900/- is an admitted in view of Money Receipt No.3111 dt.28.02.2017 furnished by the complainant.. The complainant stated that he found set hang problem sometimes which in use.  It is submitted that during his visit to his native place at Visakhapatnam (VSP), the complainant approached M/s. Innovative Electronics, VSP which is an authorised service centre of Samsung Company and the said ASC on complaint carried out instant repair work and returned the set but after a few days of repair the hang problem returned along with a new problem of Auto Switch Of.  It is further submitted that during August, 2017, the complainant again approached the said ASC who executed repairs but after few days the problems return along with touch pad problem.  Again the set was handed over to the said ASC at VSP on 12.10.2017 that recorded “Touch Pad” problem and issued job sheet No.4247111108 but after repair the complainant found multiple problems in the set besides battery backup problem.  It is also further submitted that he approached OP.2 at Jeypore on 27.01.2018 for those multiple problems and the OP.2 tried to attend the faults and advised the complainant to contact the Company to get a new phone as the set has got its manufacturing defect.  The handset did not function after repair by OP.2 also.

5.                     It is seen that the complainant has submitted approached as many as 4 times to the ASC of Samsung Company at VSP for multiple problems in the handset but the problems returned.  Finally he has approached the ASC of the Company at Jeypore on 27.01.2018.  As many as three job sheet dt.12.10.2017, 25.10.2017 & 27.01.2018 from two ASCs of the Company are available on record and on perusal it was found that the handset sold to the complainant suffers multiple problems since its purchase as ascertained from the job sheets recorded by the ASCs.

6.                     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.  In this regard we are of the opinion that the ASC at VSP and OP No.2 is the Authorised Service Centres of the OP.3 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.2 who after observation opined that the handset suffers from multiple problems which are defects of manufacturing nature and advised the complainant to approach the Company to have a new set.  The above submission of the complainant is duly supported by affidavit.  The complainant further submitted that the handset is lying unused with him.

9.                     In the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the handset of OP.3 has got inherent manufacturing defect as it did not function within a month of its purchase and also in spite of repeated repairs.  As such the present complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.36, 900/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase (28.02.2017).  Further the complainant must have suffered some mental agony due to defective set sold to him and for such inaction of the Ops the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Thus the complainant is entitled for compensation but as we have awarded higher side of interest in favour of the complainant, we are declined to award any compensation except a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.36, 900/- only towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.02.2017 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)