1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy A7 Model – SM-A7 10 FD-10 with IMEI No.356825077138956 & 35685007138954 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.12767 dt.18.7.2016 for Rs.27000/- but in spite of careful use the set while on use blasted and back glass cover of the set got broken. It is submitted that the complainant approached OP No.3 (ASC of Samsung Co.) on 02.08.2016 with problem back glass cover broken, the set hanging, switch off and set heat problems. The OP received the set but without repair the set was returned to the complainant stating that defects could not be rectified as those are manufacturing defects. The OP issued job sheet. The complainant submitted that the handset blasted within 12 days of its purchase and OP.3 could not rectify the defects as reported. Thus alleging defect 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 Rs.27, 000/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of Samsung Galaxy A7 handset on 18.7.2016 to the complainant but denied all allegations made by the complainant. It is contended that the complainant enquired and inspected the handset and upon satisfaction only he purchased the handset in good condition and due to mishandling of the set, the back glass cover broken but not due to inherent manufacturing defect. The OP further contended that he is a dealer and as the handset bears warranty; it is the duty of Ops 2 & 3 either to repair or replace the set whichever is found suitable. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.2 though entered his appearance through his A/R, it failed to file any reply to this case in spite of repeated adjournments. The OP.3 did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in spite of valid notice.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for OP No.1 and perused the materials on record.
5. In this case purchase of Samsung A7 handset from the OP.1 vides Invoice No.12767 dt.18.7.2016 for Rs.27, 000/- by the complainant is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that after 12 days of its purchase the back glass cover of the handset while on use blasted and broken for which he approached the OP.3 on 02.8.2016 who has repaired the set and issued job sheet. The case of the complainant is that on 02.8.2016 the complainant reported the problem of low battery backup, touch pad problem, switch off and set heat problem to the OP.3 but the OP.3 stated that this specific set is a defecting set and bears such type of manufacturing defects. The handset could not be repaired by the OP.3 and is lying with the complainant.
6. The OP.2 being the manufacturer of the product in spite of notice and subsequent appearance did not prefer to file counter. The allegation of manufacturing defect in the handset could not be challenged by the OP.2. Similarly the allegations of the complainant against the OP.3 also remained unchallenged as it did not file any reply to this case. In the above circumstances, we safely hold the allegations of the complainant good and with the defective set the complainant is suffering. The OP.3 being the ASC instead of repairing the set or recommending for a new set if found suitable, has discouraged the complainant. As the set could not be repaired by the ASC, it can be concluded that the set bears some inherent manufacturing defect and as such the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase. Further due to such inaction of the Ops 2 & 3 the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
7. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.27, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 18.7.2016 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)