For Complainant : Self
For OP. 1 : None
For OP.2 & 3 : Sri Santosh Ku. Mishra, Advocate & associate.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung G530H handset IMEI No.536554069137939 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.11 dt.05.05.2015 for Rs.12, 000/- and after 3 months of its use the complainant found audio and display problem in the set and on approach to OP.3 it repaired the set on the next day. It is submitted that during October, 2015 the problems returned besides set heat problem. This time the OP.3 also kept the set for one week and repaired it. Again the set did not function for similar defects and the set was handed over to OP.3 on 20.4.16 for its replacement and the OP.3 issued job sheet. After several approach, the OP.3 is not giving satisfactory reply for which the complainant is facing problems. 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.12, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter in joint admitting purchase of alleged handset by the complainant on 05.05.2015 from OP.1. It is contended that the handset of the complainant has been repaired by OP.3 ASC as and when produced by the complainant. Denying any manufacturing defect in the hand set, it is contended that the complainant is put to strict proof of his allegation regarding manufacturing defect in the handset by adducing expert opinion. Thus denying all other allegations and also denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. We have heard from the complainant as well as the A/R for the Ops and perused the material available on record.
4. In this case, purchase of Samsung G530H handset by the complainant from OP.1 on 05.05.15 is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that after 3 months of its use, he found audio problem and non working of display of the set for which he handed over the set to OP.3. Again during Oct., 2015 the same problem returned besides set hang problem and the set was repaired by the ASC. After a few days, the same problems were noticed and the OP.3 after a brief repair assured that the problems would not return but again the problems returned for which the set was handed over to OP.3 on 20.4.2016 and the OP.3 noted the faults as audio problem, display problem and set heat in the job sheet. The case of the complainant is that from that date the handset is with OP.3 and he is not getting satisfactory reply from OP.3.
5. In this case, repeated repair to the handset of the complainant is admitted by Ops in their counter and they stated that the set was repaired as and when produced by the complainant. It is seen that the set was showing defects several times during warranty period. Again when the warranty period was in force, the set was handed over to OP.3 on 20.4.2016. The set is now with the OP.3 and the complainant alleges about manufacturing defect in the set.
6. The Ops stated that the complainant cannot allege manufacturing defect in the set without expert opinion. The OP.3 in this case being the ASC, armed with technical experts is known to be an expert. The ASC repaired the set several times and finally has kept the set with him without repair. Further after repeated repairs, the problems also returned and the set could not be used by the complainant with those problems. As such there is no need of calling for any further expert opinion in this case when the facts are apparent and within the knowledge of OP.3. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that due to inherent manufacturing defect, the set could not be brought into order after repeated repairs by the ASC of the manufacturer and thus the complainant is suffering. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.4.2016 when the set was handed over to ASC and the responsibility goes to OP.2 as manufacturer. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.
7. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to refund Rs.12, 000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.4.2016 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
