1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy Grand-2 Mobile set from OP.1 bearing IMEI No.35320206753464 vide Bill No.20 dt.02.06.2015 for Rs.14, 200/- and the said hand set became dead on 30.6.2015 all of a sudden for which the complainant approached OP.2 on 04.7.2015.  It is submitted that the OP.2 received the set as “Set Dead” issuing job sheet but on 06.7.2015 the OP.2 intimated that the LCD of the set is broken for which the complainant is to pay Rs.6000/- for replacement of LCD.  It is further submitted that the complainant requested the OP.2 not to charge any amount as the set is one month old and the complainant has no role for damage of LCD but the OP.2 did not respond.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.14, 200/- towards the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     Notice on OP.1 returned unserved due to insufficient address.  In spite of valid notice, the Ops 2 & 3 neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  Hence the case after repeated adjournment was heard from the complainant only and posted for orders on merit.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  We have perused the documents available on record.

3.                     In this case the complainant has filed copy of retail invoice issued by OP.1 from which it was found that the alleged handset is sold to the complainant by OP.1, the manufacturer of which is OP No.3.  The complainant had given address of OP.1 as has been mentioned in the retail invoice but the notice returned with postal remark “Insufficient address”.  Hence we hold the notice on OP.1 held sufficient.

4.                     The case of the complainant is that he purchased the handset on 02.6.2015 and the set became dead within one month of its purchase.  The OP.2 being the Authorised Service Centre (ASC) of the manufacturer received the set on 04.07.2015 with complaint “Set Dead” but on 06.07.2015 demanded Rs.6000/- stating that the LCD of the handset is broken and due to nonpayment of Rs.6000/- by the complainant, the OP.2 returned the set unrepaired.

5.                     It is seen that the set became dead may be due to LCD broken within one month of purchase of handset i.e. within warranty period.  On perusal of Job Sheets dt.04.7.15 and 06.7.15 issued by the ASC, it was found that the complaint reported is “Set Dead” and the status of hand set is in warranty (I/W).  No other remark on the set has been mentioned in both the job sheets.  The reason for return of the set has not been mentioned in the job sheets also.  The ASC also did not mention whether the set suffered physical damage due to misuse by the complainant.  From the above facts, we failed to understand as to why the ASC returned the handset to the complainant.  LCD can be broken for any other reasons.  The OP.2 has also not intimated the complainant about LCD broken when it was produced before him.

6.                     Due to non participation of the Ops in the proceeding, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  The Ops also utterly failed to prove that the LCD was broken due to misuse of the handset by the complainant.  In the above premises, it can be safely concluded that the LCD of handset was broken within one month of its purchase due to inherent manufacturing defect and the complainant failed to use the handset after one month of purchase in spite of such a huge investment.  As such the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the handset from the OP-3 with interest @ 12% from the date of purchase.  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.1000/- towards cost of litigation.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.14, 200/- towards cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02.06.2015 in lieu of defective set and to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)