1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchase a Samsung Grand Neo GT-19060 handset bearing No. IMEI No.352742/06/293061/6 from OP No.3 vide Receipt No.678 dt.27.6.2014 for Rs.15, 800/- and after few days of use the set became “hang and set auto on off” for which OP.2, the Authorized Service Centre(ASC) of the Company made some adjustment on 12.8.2014.  Again the set was handed over to OP.2 on 19.11.14 for hang problem and the OP.2 repaired the set and returned on the next day with job sheet.  It is submitted that after few months the set gave multiple defects like set heated, net work problem and sometimes the screen became black.  The OP.2 received the set on 23.3.15 with job sheet and returned the set after a couple of days.  It is further submitted that the handset suffered same problems on 25.5.15 for which the OP.2 received the handset through job sheet and returned the set on 05.6.2015 stating that necessary parts have been changed and the problems will not return but unfortunately on the next day, the handset did not work.  The OP.2 on 08.6.15 repaired the Speaker but expressed its inability to rectify the hang problem. It is submitted that the set in spite of repairs, the OP.2 could not bring into order.  Thus alleging defective goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.15, 800/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. Hence the case after repeated adjournments was heard from the complainant only and posted for orders on merit.  We have perused the materials available on record.

3.                     In this case, the complainant has filed Retail Invoice Vide No.678 dt.27.6.14 issued by OP.3 in support of purchase of alleged handset.  Hence the purchase of handset which is manufactured by OP.1 is proved.  The complainant has also filed 5 Nos. of job sheets issued by OP.2 on different dates which clearly indicates that the handset was repaired by OP.2.

4.                     The case of the complainant is that he purchased the handset on 27.6.14 and the OP.2 repaired the set for the complaint “hang problem” on 12.8.14 and 19.11.14.  The handset was also repaired by OP.2 on 23.3.15 for “set heated, network problem and screen black”.  Again the set was handed over to OP.2 on 25.5.15 for set heat, network problem and hanging and was returned to the complainant on 05.6.15.  Again due to return of problem the set was repaired on 08.06.15 up to the extent of Speaker change but according to the complainant the OP.2 expressed its inability to rectify the hang problem in the set.

5.                     It is seen that the complainant has filed 5 Nos. of job sheets of different dates issued by OP.2 as described supra which clearly evident that the set was suffering again and again and was repaired by ASC.  Finally, the set could not be repaired by OP.2 in spite of efforts and OP.2 expressed inability to bring back the set into order.

6.                     In absence of participation and counter of Ops in this case, we have lost opportunity to know anything from them and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Further the allegations of the complainant are duly supported by job sheets.  In the above circumstances, the allegations of the complainant cannot be brushed aside.  The OP No.2 has also tried his best to rectify the defects but it failed.  Non rectification of defects in spite of efforts speaks about defective handset sold to the complainant. As such we safely hold that due to inherent manufacturing defect, the set could not be brought into order and the complainant is suffering with the defective set.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase.  As we have already awarded higher side of interest, no compensation can be granted in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to refund Rs.15, 800/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 27.6.2014 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)