For Complainant              :            Self.

For Op No.1                     :            None

For OP No.2                     :            None

For OP No.3                     :           Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate & Associates.

                                                                        -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased a Samsung handset model No.A605GZBHINS & Sl. No.RZ8K60EZWJF (356553091360659) from OP.1 vide Invoice No.452 dt.16.07.2018 for Rs.24, 000/- with one year warranty but after 15 days of purchase the complainant found Network problem in the set.  It is submitted that after a day or two the problem became acute and hence she handed over the set to OP.2 (ASC) immediately.  After 7 days the complainant contacted the OP.2 and could ascertain that they have closed the call without any repair and without intimation to the complainant.  On further enquiry, the OP stated that due to want of necessary parts and components they have closed the call.  On contact, the customer care also stated that the call is closed but assured to pass necessary instruction to the ASC.  Thereafter keeping another 10 days, the ASC returned on 20.08.2018 with job sheet.  The complainant further submitted that after 15 days, the problem returned and the set became dead.  The OP.2 received the defective set but did not issue job sheet but the complainant was advised to come after 3 days.  After 3 days the complainant visited the ASC and found that the set is lying unrepaired.  On repeated demands, the ASC issued job sheet dt.26.09.2018 and kept the set for repair.  It is also further submitted that from 26.09.2018, the complainant has since been approaching the ASC to get back her handset but the ASC was not handing over the set with plea that the set has got major problem and they are in touch of their higher centre.  The set is still lying with the OP.2 and the complainant is facing harassments for want of handset and her investment became futile.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.24, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.07.2018 and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The OP No.1 & 2 in spite of valid notice has neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the handset purchased by the complainant is a well established product in the market over a period of years.  Denying the allegation of manufacturing defect in the set, the OP.3 stated that no evidence has been furnished by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect in the handset.  The OP further contended that the complainant is put to strict proof of the fact that the handset has got major problem of manufacturing defect and if a consumer has genuine complaint, the Company has no problem in redressing the same.   It is further contended that the Kit and PBA were replaced as per warranty terms and conditions and the set was handed over to the complainant after due satisfaction. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         The complainant has filed certain documents in support of her case.  We heard from the complainant and the A/R for the OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, purchase of Samsung handset model No.A605GZBHINS & Sl. No.RZ8K60EZWJF (356553091360659) from OP.1 vide Invoice No.452 dt.16.07.2018 for Rs.24, 000/- with one year warranty so furnished by the complainant is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that after 15 days of purchase the complainant found Network problem in the set.  It is submitted that after a day or two the problem became acute and hence she handed over the set to OP.2 (ASC) immediately.  After 7 days the complainant contacted the OP.2 and could ascertain that they have closed the call without any repair and without intimation to the complainant.  On further enquiry, the OP.2 stated that due to want of necessary parts and components they have closed the call.  On contact, the customer care also stated that the call is closed but assured to pass necessary instruction to the ASC.  Thereafter keeping another 10 days, the ASC returned on 20.08.2018 with job sheet.  The complainant further submitted that after 15 days of repair, the problem returned and the set became dead.  The OP.2 received the defective set but did not issue job sheet but the complainant was advised to come after 3 days.  After 3 days the complainant visited the ASC and found that the set is lying unrepaired. 

5.                         It is seen that the complainant has approached many a time times to the ASC of Samsung Company and the ASC is not in a habit of supplying job sheets at the time of receipt the handset with complaints.  The ASC kept the set for a longer period and closed the call without any repair.  On approach only the ASC stated that due to want of necessary components, the call was closed.  The ASC did not feel it proper to intimate the same fact to the complainant.  After intervention of Customer Care centre, the ASC handed over the set on 20.08.2018 with job sheet.  If is further seen that the set became dead.  The same was handed over to the ASC immediately.  The ASC did not issue job sheet.  On demand the ASC issued job sheet on 26.09.2018 and kept the hand set for repair but till date the handset is with ASC (OP.2).

6.                         The OP.3 in its counter stated that the complainant has not furnished expert opinion in the form of evidence to prove that the set suffers from manufacturing defect.  In this regard we are of the opinion that the ASCs of the Company are armed with all technical persons to provide after sale service to the customers on behalf of the Company.  The complainant has approached the ASCs at Jeypore and after repeated repairs, the set became dead and the same is lying with the ASC as evident from the record.  The complainant has also filed copy of job sheet in this case.

9.                         In the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the handset of OP.3 has got inherent manufacturing defect as it did not function in spite of repeated repairs within warranty period.  As such the present complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.24, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of handset (16.07.2018).  Further the complainant must have suffered some mental agony due to defective set sold to her and non repair of the set and for such inaction of the Ops the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Thus the complainant is entitled for compensation but as we have awarded higher side of interest in favour of the complainant, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost.

10.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.24, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16.07.2018 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)