1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Mobile set Model SM-G130, IMEI No.355506062132210 from OP.3 vide Bill No.1311 dt.27.11.2014 but on 30.12.2015 the handset could not be operated with the BSNL SIM card used by the complainant.  The complainant tried his BSNL SIM with other handset and found operative but not in the alleged handset.  It is submitted that the complainant approached the ASC (OP.2) at Jeypore on 12.1.2016 that issued an estimate of Rs.1582/- towards cost of repair as the handset suffers out of warranty.  The complainant submitted that non supporting of BSNL Sim with the handset is a mechanical and manufacturing defect of the set for which the manufacturer is liable but without repairing the handset free of cost the ASC is issuing estimation for repair.  Thus alleging manufacturing defect in the handset he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to provide a new handset of same brand which will support all Sim Cards including BSNL Sim and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant had purchased the alleged handset on 27.11.2014 with warranty of one year from the date of purchase and said warranty was covered till 26.11.2015 and the complainant has used his handset till 11.1.2016 without any complaint.  It is contended that after expiry of warranty period the complainant on 12.1.2016 requested ASC for repair with complaint “BSNL SIM Card not supporting” and the OP.2 after through verification found the mother board of the set is defective.  Hence the OP.2 issued estimation for repair to which the complainant did not respond and took away his handset from the OP.2.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant and denying any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the set, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  Other Ops in spite of valid notice did not prefer to file counter.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents/affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the OP.1 through his A/R and perused the materials available on record.

4.                    In this case purchase of Samsung handset Model-SM – G130 E ZAAINS, IMEI No.355596062132210 by the complainant from OP.3 vide Bill No.1311 dt.27.4.2014 for Rs.4500/- is an admitted fact.  According to the complainant he found on 30.12.15 that his handset was not supporting his BSNL Sim Card and the handset became defunct, whereas the same BSNL Sim Card was of its valid use in another handset of himself.  On his approach to ASC on 12.01.2016, it verified the set and issued estimation of Rs.1582/- towards cost of repair of the handset.  The case of the complainant is that, due to manufacturing defect the BSNL Sim was not supporting and the ASC without repairing the handset free of charges, demanded Rs.1582/- towards cost of repair.

5.                     The OP.1 stated in his counter that the handset purchased by the complainant bears warranty against any kind of manufacturing defect for one year from the date of purchase.  It is further stated that the complainant has used the handset from 27.11.2014 to 11.1.2016 without any complaint i.e. near about for 14 months and hence the warranty period was over since 26.11.2015.  As such the ASC after verifying the set as well as documents has issued estimate for repair.

6.                     We have carefully gone through the materials available on record and ascertained that the complainant has purchased the handset on 27.11.14 and no complaint of any nature in respect of hand set has been made by the complainant within one year of warranty.  Only on 12.1.2016 he made complaint regarding non support of his BSNL Sim in the subject handset. As it is found, after expiry of warranty period, the defect arose in the handset and as such the complainant cannot claim warranty for his handset after expiry of warranty period.  In the above circumstances, we find no illegality committed by ASC for issuing estimation of repair after warranty period is over.

7.                     Hence we find no merit in the case of the complainant as the Ops have committed no deficiency in service.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)