1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy J5 handset IMEI No.356823078725492 from OP.1 for Rs.12, 200/- vide M. R. No.1351 dt.25.5.2016 and from the date of purchase the set was having inherent problems as the same was switching off at the time of use and finally it became dead.  It is submitted that on 23.10.2017 the set was handed over to OP.2 (ASC) who received the set for dead only.  As the handset suffered same problem it was handed over to OP.2 on 30.10.2017 again but till the date of filing of the case, the OP.2 has not returned the set after repair.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops either to replace the set with a new one or to refund its cost and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of alleged set to the complainant and contended that the complainant had purchased the set with due verification.  It is further contended that his shop is a selling point and for any defect, the complainant is to approach the ASC of the Company.  It is also further contended that if the defect noticed soon after the purchase, the complainant should have approached the service Centre but he has approached the ASC after one and half year.  Thus denying any cause of action against him, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 has neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.3 has filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the allegations in respect of manufacturing defect in the handset is not supported by expert opinion and hence it cannot be assumed that the product has any defect.  It is contended that the complainant has submitted his handset before OP.2 after using it for one and half year which is a out of warrnty case.  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, he 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 A/R for the complainant and A/R for OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case purchase of Samsung Galaxy J5 handset from OP.1 for Rs.12, 200/- on dt.25.05.2016 is an admitted fact.  It is also an admitted fact that the handset bears warranty for one year.  The case of the complainant is that the set was having inherent problem since the date of purchase and for set dead problem he handed over the set to OP.2 as per advice of OP.1 on 23.10.2017. Since then the complainant is running after the OP.2 to get back his handset repaired. 

5.                     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.  In our opinion, the OP No.2 is armed with experts duly appointed by the Company.  When the OP.2 fails to take up repair of the set within warranty period then we feel that there is no need 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.   Hence due to such inaction of Ops, the complainant suffered and has come up with this case.  As the defective set could not be repaired on cost paid basis as per estimate furnished by OP.2 through Job sheet dt.30.10.2017, the complainant is entitled to get back his handset with duly repaired on cost paid basis as per estimate since it is a out of warranty case.

6.                    Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Op No.3 is directed to return the handset with due repair on cost paid basis to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  The complainant is directed to pay the cost of repair at the time of receiving the handset back.

(to dict).