For Complainant          :             Self

For Ops 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 mobile handset Model G950 IMEI No.358057081018754 from OP.1 vide Invoice dt.02.07.2017 for Rs.57, 900/- but after a couple of days of its purchase, he found charging problem in the handset which became acute day by day and thereafter the set became dead.  It is submitted that the complainant on 05.08.2017 approached the OP.2 (ASC) with the dead set who received the set and issued job sheet for fault “charging problem and set dead”.  The OP.2 returned the set after a couple of week but after few days of repair the set became hang with heat problem.  As that problem became acute, the complainant approached the OP.2 on 10.10.2017 and the OP.2 repaired and returned the set after a week stating that the set is defect free but after few days, the problems returned.  The complainant further submitted that he felt problems in using the set due to heat problem and during last week of December, 2017, he found crack in the LCD as well as set dead.  The complainant approached the OP.2 on 25.12.2017 who received the set and issued job sheet with assurance that the LCD replacement estimate is to be sent to the Company for approval but on the next day the OP.2 returned the set awaiting approval of estimate and from that date no concrete reply was received from OP.2.  The complainant submitted that the set is lying with him unused.  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.57, 900/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.15000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The Ops 1 & 2 have neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  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.  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 in support of his case.  We heard from the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, purchase of Samsung mobile handset Model-G950 IMEI No. 358057081018754 by the complainant from OP.1 on 02.07.2017 for Rs.57, 900/- which was manufactured by OP.3 are all admitted facts.  The OP No.2 is the Authorised Service Centre of OP No.3 Company.  The complainant stated that after a couple of days of purchase, he found charging problem and after few days the set became dead and he has also approached OP.2 with the defective set.  In support of his allegation, the complainant has filed job sheet dt.05.08.2017 issued by OP.2 for charging problem and set dead.

5.                         The complainant further stated that in spite of repairs, the set became hanging with heat problem.  Those problems became acute day by day for which the complainant approached OP.2 on 10.10.2017.  It is seen from the record that the OP.2 has received the set and issued job sheet for set hang and heat problems.  According to the complainant, the OP.2 after a week has returned the set but after few days the problems returned.  The LCD of the set cracked due to overheating of the set.

6.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant has approached the OP.2 on 25.12.2017 as the problem in the handset became acute.  The OP.2 has also issued job sheet  this time stating “LCD crack due to over heading” with assurance that the estimate of the LCD replacement will be sent to the Company for approval but on the next date the OP.2 is not giving any concrete reply about replacement of LCD and repairs of the set.

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.  In this regard we are of the opinion that the OP.2 is the Authorised Service Centre 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 number of times to OP.2 and has got job sheet of different dates.  The OP.2 has undertaken repairs repeatedly but could not bring the set into order.    Over heating problem became acute in spite of repairs for which the LCD cracked as mentioned in the job sheet dt.25.12.2017.  The OP.2 had initiated proposal for LCD requirement before OP.3 but it could not be materialised in spite of long wait by the complainant.  The complainant stated that the handset is lying unused with him.  The OP.2 is the expert, who attempted to bring the set into working order.  If the report in the job sheet of OP.2 is not considered by OP.3 as expert opinion, then what else the OP.3 needs?

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 has got inherent manufacturing defect as it could not be brought into working order in spite of repeated repairs by OP.2 (ASC).  As such the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.57, 900/- with interest from the date of purchase of the handset.  Further due to defective handset, the complainant could not use the same for which he must have suffered some mental agony.  Further the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for such inaction of the Ops and hence the complainant is also entitled for cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

9.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.57, 900/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02.07.2017 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)