1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung handset Model J7 bearing IMEI No.358158070024017 & 358158070024015 from OP.1 for Rs.14, 250/- vide Retail Invoice No.1797 dt.24.2.2016 and due to acute heat problem the set was handed over to OP.2 (ASC) on 18.4.2016 for repair.  The OP.2 repaired the set but it was hanging frequently with camera problem for which the set was again handed over to OP.2 on 30.4.2016 for repair and on both the occasions the OP.2 issued service job sheet.  It is submitted that multiple defects like wifi, camera, network and software problems were noticed for which the set was handed over to OP.2 for repair on 24.6.2016.  The OP.2 returned the set after a week but the problems were actually not rectified for which the complainant was facing problems with the set.  It is further submitted that the complainant with above defects also noticed internet problem for which the set was handed over to OP.2 on 19.7.2016 but after repair the complainant found same defects in the set.  Further the network became very weak resulting non use of the set besides heat and other software problem.  Thus alleging manufacturing defect in the handset, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the set with a new one of higher version or refund of its cost at Rs.14, 250/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.2.2016 and to pay Rs.10, 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.3 filed counter with preliminary objection that the allegation of manufacturing defect in the set is not supported by any expert opinion in the form of evidence and deficiency in service is not being established against the Ops.  It is submitted that if a customer has genuine problem, the Company has no problem in redressing the same but the complainant is to prove that the set bears manufacturing defect.  The Op.3 submitted that there is no such major defect in the set as alleged by the complainant and he has filed this case without any proper justification.  Thus denying any manufacturing defect in the set 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 complainant as well as the A/R for the OP.3 and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case, purchase of Samsung J7 handset bearing IMEI No. 358158070024017 & 358158070024015 for Rs.14, 250/- vide Invoice No.1797 dt.24.2.2016 by the complainant from OP No.1 is an admitted fact as because the complainant in support of above purchase has filed copy of retail invoice issued by OP.1 for Rs.14, 250/- and the OP.3 has not challenged the said document.  According to the complainant, the set started heating while in use and as the problem became acute; the set was handed over to OP.2 (ASC) on 18.4.16 for necessary repair.  After few days of repair the complainant again noticed hanging problem and camera problem in the set for which the set was handed over to OP.2 on 30.4.2016 again.

5.                     It is seen that the OP.2 has issued service job sheet on both the occasions.  On 18.4.2016 the set was received for set heat problem and on 30.4.2016 the set was also received by OP.2 for camera problem and set fully hanging.  On both the occasions the OP.2 has repaired the set.

6.                     Further the case of the complainant is that multiple defects like wifi, camera, network and software problems were noticed in the set and the complainant faced trouble while using the set and as such handed over the set to OP.2 on 24.6.2016.  The complainant has filed service job sheet dt.24.6.2016 issued by the OP.2 for the above complaints.  The complainant has received back the set from OP.2 after a week.

7.                     It is the further case of the complainant that internet problem was noticed in the set for which the set was handed over to OP.2 on 19.7.2016.  The OP.2 has issued job sheet dt.19.7.2016.  The complainant after receipt of the set found same defects in the set and network became very weak resulting non use of the handset besides heat and other software problems.  The complainant submitted that after purchase of handset he is facing problems and due to repeated repairs, he is not at all comfort with the set and alleges that the set bears manufacturing defect for which it could not be repaired in spite of efforts by the ASC.

8.                     The OP.3 stated that the allegation of manufacturing defect in the set has not been proved by the complainant with expert opinion in the form of evidence.  In our view, the ASC run by OP.3 is armed with experts in the line of repairing of handset.  Within 5 months of purchase, the handset was taken to the ASC by the complainant 4 times with multiple defects.  Out of those defects, hanging of set frequently, heat problem, wifi and net problem are major problems.  After repeated repairs, the said problems returned frequently.  When network became very weak, it is difficult to use a handset.  Set heating is also a major problem and dangerous to use.  When the experts of ASC could not rectify those defects in spite of repeated efforts, it can be easily concluded that the set has got its manufacturing defect.

9.                     Further to negate the allegations of the complainant regarding non rectification of defects; the presence of OP.2 in this case was badly necessary.  In absence of counter and participation by OP.2, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  The complainant stated that the set is not working still due to such multiple defects.  The ASC is the only agency to provide after sale service and when it failed to rectify the defects, naturally it can be said that the set sold to the complainant is a defective one for which he is facing problems after purchasing the set.

10.                   Therefore, the set is a defective one and the complainant should not suffer with the defective set in spite of such a huge investment.  As such he is entitled to get refund of the cost of the set.  Further due to defective handset, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and also has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for interest on the cost of the set with Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.

11.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.14, 250/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.2.2016 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)