For Complainant          :             Self

For Ops 1 & 2                 :             None

For OP No.3                    :             Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate and associates.

                                                                        -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung J7 Mxt-32 Mobile set bearing IMEI No.354636/09/657538/9 & 354637/09/657538/7 for Rs.12, 000/- vide invoice No.1515 dt.31.3.2018 from OP.1 but on the next day of purchase he found defect like “Auto Switch off/restart and Display Blank” in the handset.  The complainant contacted OP.1 who advised to contact ASC (OP.2) at Jeypore to obtain Dead on Arrival (DOA) certificate for supply of a new handset as because defect noticed in the set within a week of its purchase.  Accordingly, the complainant approached the ASC on 04.04.2018 that updated the software only instead of issuing DOA and advised the complainant to try for some days but the fault in the set continued.  Hence the complainant again approached the ASC on 09.4.2018 with the same defect but the ASC this time issued a job sheet and did not agree to prepare DOA.  Further the ASC advised the complainant that the Mother Board is to be changed and this will be replaced after getting the same from the Company.  It is also further submitted that the mobile number of the complainant was available with the ASC but it did not inform anything to the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that the handset became out of order on the next day of its purchase and as per rule the ASC is bound to issue DOA in respect of a handset which shows defect within 14 days of its purchase but in spite of knowing all those facts, the ASC intentionally did not take appropriate action.  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.12, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31.3.2018 and to pay Rs.55, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner. 

3.                         The OP No.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.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

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

5.                         In this case, purchase of Samsung J7 Mxt-32 Mobile set bearing IMEI No.354636/09/657538/9 & 354637/09/657538/7 for Rs.12, 000/- vide invoice No.1515 dt.31.3.2018 from OP.1 which was manufactured by OP.3 are all admitted facts.  The complainant stated that on the next day of purchase he found defect like “Auto Switch off/restart and Display Blank” in the handset.  The complainant contacted OP.1 who advised to contact ASC (OP.2) at Jeypore to obtain Dead on Arrival (DOA) certificate for supply of a new handset as because defect noticed in the set within a week of its purchase. The Complainant stated that he approached the ASC on 04.04.2018 who updated the software only instead of issuing DOA and advised to try for some days but in spite of attempt by the ASC, the fault in the set continued.  Hence the complainant again approached the ASC on 09.4.2018 with the same defect which issued a job sheet and did not agree to prepare DOA.  Further the ASC advised the complainant that the Mother Board is to be changed and this will be replaced after getting the same from the Company.

6.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant on the next day of purchase found defect like “Auto Switch off and Display blank” and has approached the OP.2 on 04.04.2018.   The ASC on receipt of complaint only updated the software with assurance to try for some days but the complainant found the same defect in the handset after its repair.  Hence the complainant again has approached the ASC on 09.4.2018 with same defects.  The OP.2 has also issued job sheet dated 09.04.2018 stating “Auto Switch off and Display blank” and stated that the mother board of the set is to be changed after receiving the same from the Company and did not intimate anything to the complainant even though the mobile number of the complainant was available with the ASC in the Job Sheet dt.09.04.2018.  On further approach to the ASC on 30.04.2018, the complainant was intimated that the mother board had come and returned due to non-availability of the complainant.

7.                         It is seen that the complainant is working as a Teacher at Kudumuluguma of Malkangiri District and it is not possible on his part to attend the ASC daily.   As we found, the complainant had left his mobile number in the job sheet prepared by ASC for further communication.  At this juncture, non intimation to the complainant about arrival of mother board at ASC point amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the ASC.  The plea taken by the ASC that the mother board returned due to non availability of the complainant is a concocted story.

8.                         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 OP.2 is the Authorised Service Centre of the OP.3 Company, armed with all technical persons to provide after sale service to the customers on behalf of the Company.  The complainant has approached the OP.2 on 04.04.2018 to get the DOA as the set was defective from the next date of its purchase.  The ASC committed fault by not issuing DOA.  When the attempt of ASC on 04.04.2018 did not yield any result, the complainant came all the way from his workplace and approached the ASC on 09.04.2018.  The ASC this time issued job sheet indicating major problems in the handset but did not issue DOA.  Unfortunately, the ASC has not preferred to participate in this case.  The matter could have been solved, had the ASC issued DOA instantly.  For the fault of ASC the OP.3 is liable.

9.                         In the above facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the handset sold to the complainant which is the product of OP.3 has got inherent manufacturing defect as it did not function from the next day of its purchase.  As such the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.12, 000/- with interest from the date of purchase of the handset.  Further due to defective handset, the complainant could not use the same just after purchase for which he must have suffered some mental agony.  Further the complainant has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for such inaction of the Ops and hence the complainant is also entitled for cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice. 

10.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.12, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31.03.2018 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)