1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy mobile handset bearing IMEI No.355370065663427 from OP No.1 vide Bill No.198 dt.20.10.2014 for Rs.8000/- but after 2 months of its use the battery did not give proper backup and Keys were not working properly for which as per advice of OP.1, the complainant handed over the set for repair to OP No.3 on 24.12.2014. It is submitted that after keeping the handset for few days, the OP.2 issued an estimate of Rs.6072/- stating that the “Set burnt PBA defect” and “certain parts are found to be defective and need replacement”. The complainant submitted that the mobile handset was under warranty but the OP.2 demanded repair charges and did not take up the repair for which he suffered mental agony and financial loss. 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 defective set and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation plus Rs.10, 000/- towards costs.
2. The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of Samsung Mobile handset to the complainant on 20.10.14 and defects arose in the set within the warranty period. It is contended that the complainant approached the OP.1 with defective set and the OP advised the complainant to approach OP.2 who is the authorised service centre of the Company. It is also contended that in his presence the OP.2 issued estimate for repair. Denying other allegations of the complainant and denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant against him.
3. The OP.2 and 3 in spite of valid notices neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case. The OP.1 also filed affidavit. Heard from the complainant through his A/R and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case purchase of Samsung handset by the complainant is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the set suffered defects like poor battery backup and defect in Keys. The OP.2 had received the set on 23.12.14 but issued estimate on 19.1.15 for Rs.6072/-. It is seen that the handset as well as battery were well within the warranty period. The remark of ASC was “Set burnt PBA defect” comes under out of warranty but the said ASC failed to disclose the reasons of those defects. The Ops 2 & 3 also failed to file counter and hence we lost opportunity to know anything from them. Poor battery backup and non functioning of Keys were the complaint while handing over of set to OP.2 but the OP in his estimate stated that the set is burnt PBA defect. This averment of the OP.2 is not supported by cogent reasons. In our opinion, as the battery was not giving proper backup, the set might have suffered electro type defects which are not the fault of the complainant. Further Key pad defect is a major defect of the handset. As all the defects came up within the warranty period, the complainant is entitled for in-warranty service from the Ops 2 & 3. Further as the set did not suffer physical damage at the time of handing over of the same to OP.2, it can be easily concluded that the handset suffers manufacturing defect and it was required to be replaced but the OP.2 did not do so. Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the handset with interest as the handset did not function within 2 months of its purchase. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation. As ascertained, the defective set is with OP No.2.
5. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 being the manufacturer is directed to refund Rs.8000/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.10.2014 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
