1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung G 928 handset having IMEI No.353894070160410 from OP.1 for Rs.56, 900/- vide Invoice No.907 dt.07.04.2016 but on 07.03.2017 the handset started giving display problem.  On approach, the OP.3 replaced the LCD under warranty.  Again the handset was produced before OP.3 for display blinking and network problem which was repaired by OP.3.  Further the complainant noticed networking problem in the handset for which the set was deposited with OP.3 on 26.6.2017 and this time the OP.2 replaced the PBA.  It is further submitted that the handset did not function properly and it was deposited with OP.3 who received the set for the problems “set dead and charging problem” on 27.7.2017.  In spite of repairs the problems could not be rectified by OP.3 and the OP.3 opined that this model of handset of the Company is a defective model.  Thus alleging inherent manufacturing defect and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.56, 900/- towards cost of handset and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No. 2 & 3 filed counter in joint admitting the sale of the handset to the complainant and also admitted repairs made by the ASC to the set.  It is contended that the complainant has filed this case without producing any expert opinion in the form of evidence and hence it cannot be assumed that the product has any defect.  It is contended that as per version of the complainant, she has not produced the defective handset before the ASC and the complainant has not deposited the set before this Forum and till date she is using the handset without any interruption.  It is further contended that there is no issue in the set as alleged by the complainant and a false case has been filed for wrongful gain.  Thus denying any manufacturing defect in the handset or any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case Samsung handset bearing Model SM-G928GZSAINS with IMEI No. 353894070160410 purchased by the complainant from OP.1 for Rs.56, 900/- on 07.04.2016 is an admitted fact.  It is also an admitted fact that the handset bears an extended warranty for another term of one year and the OP.2 has issued Smart Warranty Service dt.08.04.2017 in respect of the handset.  The case of the complainant is that he found display problem in the handset for which he handed over the set to OP.3 who repaired the set but thereafter the complainant noticed multiple defects in the handset on different point of time for which the complainant approached the ASC (OP.3) but the defect could not be rectified during warranty and also during extended warranty.  The Ops 2 & 3 stated in their counter that the ASC has repaired the set as and when the handset was produced for repair and absolutely there is no issue in the handset.

5.                     We have carefully gone through the record and found that the handset was produced before the ASC on 07.04.2017 for display problem, on 31.03.2017 for networking problem and on 27.7.2017 for set dead and charging problem.  As the above defects arose within the warranty period.   The Samsung Smart Warranty issued on 08.04.2017 by the OP.2 clearly shows that the handset is under warranty till 07.04.2018.  The complainant stated that in spite of repeated repairs, the handset is not functioning properly and he suffers with the set.

6.                     The Op.3 stated that the complainant has neither furnished any expert opinion in order to prove that the handset bears inherent manufacturing defect nor produced the handset before the Forum and hence the complainant is using the set till date.  The OP No.2 is armed with experts duly appointed by the Company.  When the OP.2 fails to repair the set after several attempts within warranty period then we feel that there is no requirement of further expert opinion in respect of the alleged handset.  It is the duty of Ops 2 & 3 to rectify the defect and return the set defect free within a reasonable period but they did not do so.  It is stated in the complaint petition duly supported by affidavit that in spite of several repairs the set could not be brought into its working order.   Hence due to such inaction of Ops, the complainant suffered and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  As the defective set could not be repaired within the warranty period, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.56, 900/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.03.2017, the date of noticing defect.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel, a sum of Rs.4000/- 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.3 is directed to refund Rs.56, 900/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.03.2017 and to pay Rs.4000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict).