1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung G7102ZWAINS handset bearing IMEI No.353202061699901 for Rs.20, 500/- vide Invoice No.1200 dt.18.08.2014 from OP.1 but soon after purchase, the set did not function properly for which as per advice of OP.1, the complainant contacted OP.3, the ASC.  The OP.3 updated the software and the LCD was changed but did not issue job sheet.  It is submitted that on 23.7.2015 the system became hang and LCD problem was noticed besides set hang and on approach the OP.3 changed the LCD but after repair the handset is showing multiple problems.  It is submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.1169/- to OP.3 towards one year extended warranty which is valid till 17.8.2016.  Thus alleging a defective set sold to him and deficiency in service committed by the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to refund Rs.20, 500/- towards cost of the handset or to supply a new handset and to pay Rs.40, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, all the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and remained ex-parte.  Hence the matter was heard from the complainant alone for orders on merit basing upon the materials available on record.  The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.

3.                     In this case the complainant has filed copy of invoice No.1200 dt.18.8.2014 for Rs.20, 500/- issued by OP.1 towards sale of Samsung handset to the complainant and hence the purchase of handset from OP.1 is not a disputed fact.  The case of the complainant is that soon after the purchase i.e. on 18.8.2014 the handset did not work properly and on that date the OP.3 has changed the LCD and updated the software of the set but failed to issue job sheet.  Further on 23.7.2015 the handset was given to OP.3 with problem in display and the display was replaced but soon after the repair the handset did not work properly with multiple problems such as hanging and set heat.  On approach the OP.3 could not bring the set in to order and till date the complainant is suffering with the defective handset.

4.                     In absence of counter and participation of Ops in this proceeding, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  It is also seen that the complainant has obtained an extended warranty of one year which is valid till 17.8.2016 and within the basic warranty period of one year the handset became defective.  On the date of sale also the LCD was changed and software updated.  On 23.7.2015 the OP.3 has undertaken the repair and issued job sheet.  After such repair the handset again went out of order and could not be repaired.  This allegation of the complainant bears much importance and due to non participation of the Ops in this proceeding we lost opportunity to hear anything from them on this allegation. Hence in our opinion non repair of set within warranty period in spite of repeated efforts speaks that the handset has some inherent manufacturing defect for which it could not be repaired.  As such the complainant is entitled for refund of its cost with interest.  Further in spite of such a huge investment, the complainant could not get any utility of the handset due to multiple defects and the complainant sustained mental agony and physical harassment for which he is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

5.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.20, 500/- towards the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 18.8.2014 in lieu of defective set 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.)