1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy J7 Mobile Model No.SM-J700FZKDINS bearing Sl. No.RZ8G805XL9F (352840070679454) on 07.09.2015 for Rs.15, 000/- from OP.1, the approved seller of the handset manufactured by OP.3 and on receipt of handset, the complainant found that the calls are not being allowed through the handset showing “emergency calls only”.  It is submitted that during the month of January, 2016 the OP.2 on approach updated software and rectified the problems but during February, 2016 the same problem noticed and the OP.2 repaired the set in the same manner without issuing any job sheet.  It is further submitted that again the same problem noticed in the handset and the OP.2 on 13.6.2016 rectified the defect and issued Job Sheet No.4216040835 dt.16.6.2016.  It is also further submitted that on 21.6.2016 the complainant found incoming and outgoing calls are not being allowed repeatedly while in use and on complaint the OP.2 replaced the PBA and issued job sheet No.4216321950 dt.21.6.2016 and made the set defect free but soon after receipt of handset from OP.2 the problem of “emergency calls only” again noticed.  On contact to OP.2 it opined that the handset has got its inherent manufacturing defect and hence the complainant sent a mail on 25.7.2016 to OP.1 requesting replacement of defective handset with a new one but to no reply by OP.1.  Thus alleging defects in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund the cost of the handset at Rs.15, 000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 07.9.2015 and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                                                         In spite of valid notice the OP.1 neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but otherwise admitted about the purchase of alleged handset of Samsung Company from OP.1, the authorised seller.  It is contended that the complainant has never visited 2 times during the month of January, 2016 to the ASC for the defects “emergency calls only” in the handset but admitted about the repair to the handset on 16.6.2016 for the problem “emergency calls only” by updating the software by OP.2.  The Ops further contended that as the problem returned in the handset, they replaced the PBA and made the handset defect free and from that date the complainant has not approached the Ops.  Denying any further fault in the handset and also denying any deficiency in service on their part or defect in goods, they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                                                         Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                                                         In this case purchase of Samsung Galaxy J7 handset Model No. SM-J700FZKDINS by the complainant for Rs.15, 000/- from OP No.1 on 06.09.2015 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that soon after the handset was put into used, calls were not allowed through it showing “emergency calls only” and he approached the OP.2 during January, 2016 and the problem was solved after updating the software.  It is further stated that during February, 2016 the same problem was found and the OP.2 rectified the defect in the same manner as that of before but did not issue service job sheet on both the occasions.  The complainant further stated that during second week of June, 2016 as the handset displayed “emergency calls only” and did not allow calls, the OP.2 updated software and issued job sheet.  The complainant has filed the copy of job sheet dt.16.6.2016.

5.                                                         The above statements of the complainant, as we find, appear to be contradictory to each other as because the complainant states that soon after the handset was put into use, he found the defect but he claims to be approached the OP.2 for rectification of defect during January, 2016 i.e. after 4 months of purchase.  There is no evidence forthcoming that the complainant has used the handset in the month of January, 2016 after purchasing the same on 06.9.2015.  Further if the OP.2 could provide job sheet for the same problem on 16.6.16 after repair, then he was no problem to issue job sheets during January & February, 2016 repairs.  Hence it creates doubt whether the complainant had approached for repair of set to OP.2 during January & February, 2016.

6.                                                         It is further seen that OP.2 has repaired the set for the problem “emergency calls only” on 16.6.16 by updating the software and has issued job sheet and when the complainant approached the OP.2 for the same problem in the handset on 21.6.2016, the OP.2 has replaced the PBA which is the main component of a handset and also issued job sheet.  The complainant in his complaint petition also stated that the OP.2 by replacing the PBA, made the handset defect free and thereafter stated that soon after receipt of handset from OP.2, the same defect returned and on approach the OP.2, it opined that the set bears inherent manufacturing defect for which he requested the OP.1 to replace the set with a new one.

7.                                                         In our opinion, this simple say will not do.  If soon after receipt of handset on 21.6.2016 i.e. after change of PBA, the same defect noticed, the complainant should have deposited the hand set with OP.2 and obtained necessary papers showing manufacturing defect in the handset for future course of action but the complainant did not do so.  Hence how could it be believed that the handset is having inherent manufacturing defect without opinion of OP.2, the expert since the OP.2 was all along dealing with the handset.  After receipt of said report, the complainant should have approached the manufacturer but not to the OP.1 for replacement of the handset with a new one.

8.                                                         From the above discussions, it can be concluded that there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the complainant that after replacement of PBA, the handset suffered same problem.  It is seen that on production of handset, the OP.2 has taken necessary steps and has changed the PBA which is the prime component of a handset.  The complainant has never approached the OP.2 for any defect in the handset after the PBA is replaced. As such from the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.

9.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant which is having no merit but without cos