1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Mobile set Model No.SM-G950FZKDINS, Sl. No.RZ8J5191WRH & IMEI No.358057081030965 vide Invoice No.POS 16841 dt.11.6.2017 for Rs.58, 000/- from OP.1 but after 3 months of use it started giving defect in respect of excess heat at the time of use with repeated hang and on approach to OP.2 (ASC) during last week of Oct., 2017 it conducted repair but failed to issue job sheet.  It is submitted that after a week or two the same problems returned with new problems i.e. set started sparking for few seconds on use and becomes auto off and touch pad was not working.  The complainant had to go back to main menu to bring the touch pad into working condition.  It is further submitted that the set was again handed over to ASC on 07.11.2017 but the ASC noted defect in the job sheet as “Set Heat & Hang” only and returned the set on 09.11.2017 but after few hours of use the problems returned.  The complainant submitted that on approach to one Mr. Uttam Das, Branch Manager of Samsung Service Unit, Bhubaneswar, he directed OP.2 to make the set defect free and the set was handed over to OP.2 on 20.11.2017.  The OP.2 returned the set after a week with half repair and Mr. Uttam Das advised the complainant to use the set for few days and observe development but the complainant found no development in the set.  Then audio problem noticed and the set was handed over to OP.2 who issued job sheet on 13.12.2017 only for audio problem but the ASC did not prefer to attend other problems already existed in the set.  The ASC returned the set on 29.12.2017 but the performance of the set was not satisfactory.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.58, 000/- towards cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.6.2017 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The Op No.1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.3 filed counter admitting the purchase of alleged Samsung Handset by the complainant with preliminary objection that the allegation of manufacturing defect in the handset is not supported by any expert opinion in the form of evidence and deficiency in service is not being established against the Op.  It is submitted that if a customer has genuine problem, the Company has no problem in redressing the same up to the extent of repairing but not the refund the cost of set and the complainant is to prove that the handset bears manufacturing defect.  The Op.3 submitted that there is no such major defect in the handset as alleged by the complainant and he has filed this case without any proper justification.  Thus denying any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator or any deficiency in service on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the A/Rs for complainant as well as the OP.3 and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case, purchase of Samsung Mobile Set bearing Model-SM-G950FZKDINS, Sl. No.RZ8J5191WRH & IMEI No.358057081030965 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.POS 16841 dt.11.6.2017 for Rs.58, 000/- is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that after 3 months of its use, it started giving defect in respect of excess heat at the time of use with repeated hang and on approach to OP.2 (ASC) during last week of Oct., 2017 it conducted repair but failed to issue job sheet.  After a week or two besides the earlier problems, set started sparking for few seconds on use and becomes auto off and touch pad was not working.  The set was again handed over to ASC on 07.11.2017 and the ASC noted defect in the job sheet as “Set Heat & Hang” only and returned the set on 09.11.2017 but after few hours of use the problems returned. On approach to Mr. Uttam Das, Branch Manager of Samsung Service Unit, Bhubaneswar, he directed OP.2 to make the set defect free and the set was handed over to OP.2 on 20.11.2017.  The OP.2 returned the set after a week with half repair and Mr. Uttam Das advised the complainant to use the set for few days and observe development but the complainant found no development in the set.  Then audio problem noticed and the set was handed over to OP.2 who issued job sheet on 13.12.2017 only for audio problem but the ASC did not prefer to attend other problems already existed in the set.  The ASC returned the set on 29.12.2017 but the performance of the set was not satisfactory.

5.                     In this case, two job sheets dt.07.11.2017 and 13.12.2017 have been filed by the complainant regarding set heat, hang and audio problem.  The complainant also stated that the set was sparking while on use but the OP.2 did not mention the defect in the job sheet.  Interference of Mr. Uttam Das, Branch Manager of Service Unit at Bhubaneswar cannot be disbelieved.  Repeated repair to the handset of the complainant is admitted by Op in the counter and it was stated that the set was repaired as and when produced by the complainant.  It is seen that the set was showing defects several times during warranty period. The complainant alleges about manufacturing defect in the set.

6.                     The Ops stated that the complainant cannot allege manufacturing defect in the set without expert opinion.  The OP.2 in this case being the ASC, armed with technical experts is known to be an expert in our opinion.  The ASCs repaired the set several times but could not bring it into order.  Further after repeated repairs, the problems also returned and the set could not be used by the complainant with those problems.  As such there is no need of calling for any further expert opinion in this case when the facts are apparent and within the knowledge of OP.2 and others.  Therefore, it can be safely concluded that due to inherent manufacturing defect, the set could not be brought into order after repeated repairs by the ASC of the manufacturer and thus the complainant is suffering.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.06.2017 i.e. the date of purchase and the responsibility goes to OP.3 as manufacturer.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for except a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost of this litigation. 

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.58, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.06.2017 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)