1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung mobile handset from OP.3 on 16.4.2016 for an amount of Rs.14, 290/- with 2 years warranty but the handset did not function within warranty period.  On approach, the OP.2 inspected the handset and found LCD and Camera broken.  The OP.2 placed order for spare parts with OP.1 but the said OP.2 did not supply the spares and hence the OP.2 intimated the said fact to the complainant through a letter dt.30.8.2016.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the handset with a new one and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the damage to the LCD and  Camera occurred due to misuse or mishandling of the phone by the complainant and hence the warranty of the set was void  to repair due to physical damage of the set.  It is further contended that the OP.2 agreed to repair the set but due to out of stock of spares; the OP.2 booked the order and took three weeks time from the complainant for repair of the handset.  The complainant on 30.8.16 has approached the OP.2 and when he came to know that the spares are yet to receive by the OP.2, the complainant took return of the handset.  The complainant also demanded a written reply from the OP.2 in respect of non availability of spare parts for repair of the handset.  It is also further contended that the OP.2 requested the complainant to give some more time for repair of the handset but the complainant did not agree.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP No.3 remained absent in this proceeding.

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

4.                     In this case the complainant has purchased the handset on 16.4.2016 which bears warranty for one year.  Within warranty period, the complainant has approached the OP.2 (ASC) for nonfunctioning of the set and the ASC found that the LCD and Camera of the handset broken due to misuse by the complainant.  After receiving the handset, the OP.2 has booked order vide No.1245219793 with OP.1 for spare parts and took 3 weeks time from the complainant for repair of the handset.

5.                     The case of the complainant is that he approached the OP.2 on 30.8.2016 but the handset was not repaired then.  The OP.2 stated that the spare parts could not be received from the Company on the date of approach of the complainant and hence they requested the complainant to wait for some time as the materials are yet to be received.  It is seen that the complainant has received back the set from OP.2 with a written reply in respect of non receipt of spare parts from the Company by the ASC.

6.                     Apparently the LCD and Camera broken though during the warranty period it does not come within the warranty service as per terms and conditions of the Company and it can be said that it is a warranty void case due to mishandling and misuse of the handset by the complainant.  In fact, it is the duty of the Ops 1 & 2 to repair the handset by replacing necessary parts on chargeable basis if found warranty void.  In this case the Ops admittedly have taken 20 days time to repair the set.  The complainant after waiting for 20 days has taken back the handset.  This inaction on the part of the Ops in our opinion certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  However, the prayer of the complainant to replace the handset with a new one is not acceptable by us as because the defect in the handset occurred due to misuse or mishandling of the set by the complainant and certainly the defect is not coming under any manufacturing nature.  The complainant also has voluntarily taken back the handset from the OP.2 without repair.  Had he have some patience, the handset would have been repaired by the ASC. In the above circumstances, it can be concluded that the complainant is entitled for some compensation as the Ops have not provided him the necessary after sale service to which they ought to do.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- 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.1 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

(to dict.)