1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung mobile phone Model – G531f, IMIE No.352302070347525 for Rs.11, 000/- from OP.1 vide invoice No. 600 dt.18.9.2015 and the said mobile phone did not function properly in the month of November, 2015. It is submitted that the set did not function properly in spite of repeated repairs and the complainant approached the OP.1 for replacement of the set with a new one but the Ops failed to do so. 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.11000/- towards cost of the set besides Rs.39, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of alleged handset to the complainant and contended that the complainant has never approached him with any complaint. It is contended that the OP.1 is a retailer of the handset and the complainant has purchased the set on proper verification and on his satisfaction only. Defect if any noticed in the set after its sale, it is the duty of Ops 2 & 3 to provide after sale service but not this OP. It is further contended that with a very little margin he is doing retail business of Samsung phone and he is not authorised to refund the cost of the handset or to repair it. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP.2 did not participate in the proceeding in spite of valid notice. The OP.3 filed counter admitting that the complainant has purchased the alleged set from OP.1 on 18.9.2015 with one year warranty from the date of purchase. It is also admitted by OP.3 that the complainant has approached OP.2 on 21.11.2015, 18.04.2016 and 09.5.2016 for repair of the handset. The OP contended that on complaint dt.21.11.2015, the defects have been rectified by the ASC and for second and third occasion, the complainant had come with false complaints for which a job sheets were prepared and cancelled and handset was delivered to the complainant. The OP further contended that the warranty condition clearly refers for replacement of defective spare parts but not to replace the whole product and as there was no defect in the handset, the complainant is not entitled for return of cost of the handset. Thus denying any fault on their part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases. Heard from the A/R of complainant and OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case purchase of Samsung handset G531f, IMIE No.352302070347525 by the complainant for Rs.11, 000/- from OP.1 on 18.9.2015 is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the set suffered fully hang and auto switch off problems within 2 months of its purchase for which the set was taken to the OP.2 (ASC) on 21.11.2015. The OP.3 stated in his counter that this time the OP.2 rectified the defects by replacing the PBA of the handset but in the service job sheet dt.21.11.2015 issued by OP.2 and filed by the complainant, we do not see any such description under repair head. The repair description head is totally blank in the job sheet dt.21.11.2015.
6. The OP No.3 besides his counter has filed copy of job sheet dt.21.11.2015 in which it was mentioned that the “PBA replaced set OK”. Information in this job sheet contradicts the information of job sheet of same date filed by the complainant. Further it is seen that the job sheet furnished by OP.3 bears no signature of the complainant and hence the complainant has no knowledge about changing of PBA of his set. Therefore, we are in doubt whether the PBA of the set has been changed by OP.2.
7. Further due to set hanging, Auto switch off and set heating problems, the complainant again submitted the handset before the ASC on 18.4.2016. The OP.3 stated that this time the OP.2 received the set and on verification it was found that there was no defect in the set. Perused the job sheet dt.18.4.16 and found that there is no such remark given by the ASC in the job sheet. If there was no such problem in the handset on receipt, the ASC should have posted its remark in the job sheet itself but it was not done. Hence it can be concluded that there was some defect in the set as reported by the complainant.
8. On 3rd occasion, the set was handed over to OP.2 on 09.5.2016 for “Set hanging, Auto off, set heating and set restart” problems. The OP.3 stated in his counter that the ASC verified the set and found no defect. On perusal of job sheet dt.09.5.2016 it was found that there is no such remark by the ASC that the set was defect free at the time of receipt at ASC.
9. It is seen that the set was produced before the ASC by the complainant 3 times within warranty period with different problems and the ASC has issued job sheets. The complainant stated that the set is out of order and is of no use. The OP.3 stated that there was no problem in the handset and the complainant with ill intention is trying for illegal gain. In the above context, the ASC is the right party to say about the condition of the handset and the extent of repair done to it but unfortunately the ASC is absent in this case in spite of valid notice. In absence of counter and participation of ASC we lost opportunity to know anything about the handset. The ASC is known to be an expert and it had repaired the set 3 times. In spite of repeated repairs the set again became non functional within warranty period.
10. From the above facts, it was ascertained that the set of the complainant could not be brought into order by OP.2 in spite of repeated repairs and as such we firmly believe that the set has got inherent manufacturing defect. In this case no expert opinion is required as the OP.2 failed to bring set into order being the expert in the line of repair duly appointed by OP No.3. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. in lieu of defective set. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost. The OP.1 has no liability towards the complainant in this case.
11. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.11000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 18.9.2015 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. No orders against OP No.1.
(to dict.)
