1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung J7 Max handset vide IMEI No.358344087757746 from OP No.1 vide Receipt No.5190 dt.11.08.2017 for Rs.17, 900/- but from the date of purchase the handset was not functioning properly.  It is submitted that he approached the dealer and as per his advice, the complainant contacted Samsung Authorised Service Centre (ASC) at Bikram Nagar.  It is submitted that after brief repairs, the ASC was used to handover the set to the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that in the meanwhile said ASC was closed and at Gandhi Chowk a new ASC namely “Krishna Electronics” was set up by the Company.  The complainant also approached the said ASC with defective handset.  After repeated repairs, the handset became dead within warranty period.  The complainant also submitted that every time of repair, the ASCs of the company were taking back the Job Sheets while returning the handset after repair for which the complainant could not file all the job sheets before the Forum.  Finally, the ASC demanded the cost of mother board which was to be replaced with a new one for well functioning of the handset to which the complainant did not agree because from the date of purchase, the handset was not functioning properly and the complainant was approaching the ASCs regularly.  It is also further submitted that the handset is lying with the ASC and the complainant is suffering.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to replace the handset with a new one and to pay Rs.30000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         The OP.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 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.2 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.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  We heard from the complainant and the A/R for the OP.2 and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case, purchase of Samsung handset bearing IMEI No.358344087757746 Model J7 Max by the complainant for Rs.17, 900/- from OP No.1 is an admitted fact in view of Money Receipt No.5190 dt.11.08.2017 furnished by the complainant. The complainant stated that he found certain defects like hang problem in the set soon after its purchase for which he approached the authorised service centre of the Company, at Bikram Nagar, Jeypore and the said ASC on complaint carried out instant repair work and returned the set but after a few days of repair the hang problem returned along with a new problem of Auto Switch of.  It is further submitted that the complainant again approached the said ASC who executed repairs but after few days the problems return along with touch pad problem.  The complainant stated that the ASC at Bikram Nagar was abolished and new ASC was set up at Gandhi Chowk, Jeypore.  Again the set was handed over to the said ASC but after repair the complainant found the set dead and handed over to the ASC.    It is also further stated that on all the occasions, the job sheets issued by the ASCs were taking back.  The complainant has filed last Job sheet dt.20.09.2018.

5.                         It is seen that the complainant has approached many a time times to the ASC of Samsung Company and the Company can ascertain the previous job sheets in this case from their record.  At last he has approached the ASC at Gandhi Chowk on 20.09.2018 with the handset on dead condition.  The complainant has filed a letter dt.16.10.2018 of the ASC in which the complainant was asked to take back his handset.  We have carefully gone through that letter.  In that letter, the ASC has not mentioned as to whether the handset is repaired or not.  The complainant stated that on being approach at ASC, he found that the Engineer of the ASC could not switch on the handset and the same was in dead condition.  Hence he left the set with the ASC and the ASC has kept the set with it.  As per the records available and the submissions advanced by the complainant at the time of hearing it was found that the handset sold to the complainant suffers multiple problems since its purchase and the ASCs could not be able to bring the handset of the complainant into working condition.

6.                         The OP.2 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.2 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.17, 900/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case (06.08.2018).  Further the complainant must have suffered some mental agony due to defective set sold to him 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.1000/- towards cost.

10.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.17, 900/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 06.08.2018 and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)