For Complainant          :             Sri Giridhar Khora, Advocate & associates.

For OP No.1 & 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 she purchased a Samsung SM-J7 Pro handset IMEI No.356874080734304 from OP.1 vide Bill No.12 dt.10.08.2017 for Rs.20, 900/- and after 3 months of its purchase the complainant found black and blue patches in the display of the handset.  It is submitted that as the handset did not function showing blank display, she approached OP.2-ASC on 18.12.2017.  It is further submitted that the OP.2 on receipt of handset issued job sheet and advised the complainant to come after 10 to 12 days.  When the complainant approached OP.2 on 16.01.2018 it stated that the handset has been sent to Bhubaneswar for repair and on 05.02.2018 returned the set with job sheet stating that the handset is broken and it does not cover under warranty.  The complainant submitted that the handset in question comes under warranty but the Ops did not oblige the warranty conditions.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the defective set with a new one and to pay Rs.12, 000/- towards compensation 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 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 returned the set stating that the set is broken and hence it does not cover 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 her 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 SM-J7 Mobile set bearing IMEI No.356874080734304 for Rs.20, 900/- vide invoice No.12 dt.10.08.2017 from OP.1 which was manufactured by OP.3 are all admitted facts.  The complainant stated that after 3 months of purchase she found defect like “Display Blank” in the handset showing some blue and black dots.  The complainant contacted OP.1 who advised to contact ASC (OP.2) at Jeypore for its repair. The Complainant stated that he approached the ASC on 18.12.2017 that issued job sheet mentioning the fault in it.  The OP.2 advised the complainant to come after 10 to 12 days. Hence the complainant again approached the ASC on 16.01.2018 who stated that the handset has been sent to Bhubaneswar for repair but on 05.02.2018 returned the set with job sheet stating that the handset is broken and it does not cover under warranty.  

6.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant has purchased the set on 10.08.2017 and due to display blank; she has approached the ASC on 18.12.2017.  The ASC has issued job sheet reporting the fault as “Display not visible with black patches on the screen”.  The ASC has sent the handset to higher service centre at Bhubaneswar.    After receipt of set from Bhubaneswar, the OP.2 has issued another job sheet dt.05.02.2018 stating that the set is broken and hence not covered warranty.

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 is broken and hence it does not cover under warranty.  In order to establish her case, complainant has not adduced any independent evidence in support of her case.  In this regard we are of the opinion that, the ASC is armed with Engineers and technicians and when they opined that the set is broken which means physically damaged, the same cannot be covered under warranty and the complainant is to get her handset repaired on cost paid basis.  It is seen that the complainant has never approached the Ops 2 & 3 to repair the handset on cost paid basis.  Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

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 working for 4 months without any complaint till it was handed over to OP.2 for repair.  As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief and her case needs dismissal.

9.                         In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)