1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased a Samsung Galaxy J26 handset bearing IMEI No.352602/08/809819/6 & 352603/08/809819/4 from OP.1 for Rs.9800/- vide Money Receipt No.2040 dt.24.9.2016 but since the date of purchase the handset started giving defect in respect of incoming & outgoing calls and in internet usage. It is submitted that the handset was automatically activating “Safe Mode” as a result of which most of the applications were unable to launch and incoming and outgoing calls were disturbed. It is further submitted that the complainant reported the matter to OP.1 several times who most often referred the handset OP.2 (ASC) but the set was still having same defect. At last on 05.09.2017, the OP.1 handed over the set to OP.2 and till date nothing has been done by OP.2 for which the complainant is suffering. Thus alleging inherent manufacturing defect in the handset, she has filed this case praying the forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.9800/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.35, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of Samsung Galaxy J26 handset to the complainant for Rs.9800/- on 24.9.2016 and contended that whenever the complainant alleged about non working of handset, the OP.1 was attending the complaint to his capacity but when the complainant alleged about total non functioning of the set, the OP.1 advised the complainant to take the handset to OP.2 and after that the OP.1 does not know anything that happened between the complainant and OP.2. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and 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.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of her case. The OP.1 filed affidavit. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case purchase of Samsung Galaxy J26 handset from OP.1 by the complainant vide Invoice No.2040 dt.24.9.2016 for Rs.9800/- is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that since the date of purchase the handset was not functioning smoothly in respect of incoming & outgoing calls and in internet usage and the set was automatically activating “Safe Mode” for which most of the applications were unable to launch and calls were disturbed. For the above problems, the complainant has approached OP.1 several times who refers the handset to OP.2 but the problems persisted.
6. The OP.1 in his counter also admitted about the defects in the handset noticed several times and he has attended the set as and when required to his best capabilities. The OP.1 further contended that when the handset became non functional, he advised the complainant to approach OP.2 and that after he is ignorant about the development.
7. From the above facts it was ascertained that the handset was giving problems regularly for which the OP.1 was attending the defects. When the problems became acute, the handset was delivered to OP.2. We have perused the job sheet issued by OP.2 for the problems reported “Safe Mode”. It is found that the handset was deposited with OP.2 by none other than OP.1 but in his counter the OP.1 stated that he had advised the complainant to produce the set before OP.2 and thereafter he is ignorant about what happened between the complainant and OP.2. However, it was ascertained that the handset is still with the ASC and the condition of the set is not disclosed by any of the parties. Hence the OP.3 Company is liable for the activities of OP NO.2 ASC.
8. 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. This submission of OP.3 does not sound good. When the handset is with the ASC of the Company and the complainant is not aware about the condition of the handset till dated, how could she be able to deposit the handset before the Forum? Further the ASC duly appointed by the Company is an expert and the ASC has properly noted the defect in the 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, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.9800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 05.09.2017. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.4000/- towards cost of this litigation.
9. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.9800/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 05.09.2017 and to pay Rs.4000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
