1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung handset Model Galaxy J5 (Gold) bearing IMEI No.356824075146079 from OP.1 vide Bill No.482 dt.03.04.16 for Rs.12, 390/- and on 14.4.16 the complainant found that the set is dead and not working for which the set was handed over to OP.2 who kept the set with him for one month for repair and returned the set on 15.5.16 stating that the set is OK with changing of mother board under warranty. It is submitted that after some days it was found that the set is overheating and hanging frequently for which he handed over the set to OP.2 on 30.5.16 and the OP.2 returned the set on 06.06.16 stating that the defect is rectified. Further due to battery backup problem, heating, hanging and software problems the set was handed over to OP.2 on 30.6.16 and was repaired but within a couple of days all the problems returned and the set is lying unused with the complainant. Thus alleging inherent manufacturing defect with the set and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.12, 390/- towards cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 03.04.16 and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and costs 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 through his A/R denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the purchase of alleged handset on 03.4.16 by the complainant from OP.1 for a consideration of Rs.12, 390/- with one year warranty from the date of purchase. It is contended that the OP.2 has removed the defects and issued job sheet each time and if the problem persisted, who restricted the complainant to go for repair after 30.6.16 when the set became totally dead. The OP also contended that “Hang” of the set is not a defect and the set cannot be defunct/dead due to the problems mentioned in the complaint petition i.e. software, hang and battery backup problems. The OP.3 also contended that without any expert opinion, the complainant cannot say that the handset suffers inherent manufacturing defect. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case. The OP.3 filed citation in support of his case. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case purchase of handset vide bill No.482 dt.03.4.14 for Rs.12, 390/- by the complainant from OP.1 is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that on 14.4.16 he found the set is dead and handed over it to OP.2 for repair and on 15.5.16 the OP has returned the set stating that the mother board is changed under warranty. Again the set was found overheating and hanging frequently for which the set was handed over to OP.2 on 30.5.16 and the OP.2 returned the set on 06.06.16 stating that the defect is rectified.
5. The OP.3 in his counter stated that hang is not a technical or mechanical defect of the set and such hanging will appear due to load of applications more than the capacity of the set. It is seen that on the first occasion the set became dead and secondly the set became hanging and overheating. The OP-3 did not say anything about the set dead and the OP.2 kept the set about one month for repair and changed the mother board. If the defect is not vital, change of mother board was not necessary in the set. The Job Sheet dt.14.4.16 says that the set is dead and it did not say that the set is misused. As such the set has got inherent manufacturing defect for which the mother board was changed under warranty.
6. Further the set was handed over to OP.2 on 30.5.16 for set hanging and heating. The OP.3 did not say in his counter about set heating and its reason. The OP.2 this time returned the set to the complainant on 06.06.16 after repair. Again the battery gave low backup and heating problem for which the set was handed over to OP.2 who returned the set on 30.6.16. It was seen that the set heat problem could not be rectified in spite of repeated repairs whereas the low battery backup problem so arose became permanent. Except hang problem the OP.3 did not say anything about the set dead, overheating and low battery backup problem.
7. Further the OP.3 stated that no expert opinion is filed by the complainant regarding inherent manufacturing defect in the set. It is a settled principle of law that if the problems are apparent, the Forum should not insist for any expert opinion. The job sheets clearly show the multiple defects in the set and the problems started soon after the purchase of the set and continued as such. Hence we do not feel it proper to insist expert opinion from the complainant and the complainant should not go to the Service Centre again and again for the same defects.
8. From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the set has got its inherent manufacturing defects and the complainant is suffering soon after the purchase of the set. The OP.2 also could not bring the set into order in spite of repeated repairs. Hence the complainant is liable to get refund of the cost of the handset at Rs.12, 390/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase as he has not used the set comfortably. Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs and considering the sufferings we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs 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.3 is directed to refund Rs.12, 390/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 03.04.16 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
