1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung J7 Prime handset from OP.1 on 11.5.2017 for Rs.16, 900/- but from the date of purchase the handset was malfunctioning in respect of voice call and internet.  At times the handset was becoming dead without any reason for which as per advice of OP.1, the complainant handed over the set to OP.2 (ASC) on 14.12.2017 for repair but no repair has been done by OP.2 till filing of this case.  Thus alleging 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 Rs.16, 900/- towards cost of the handset and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards  compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about sale of alleged handset to the complainant.  It is contended that the OP.1 being a selling dealer without having after sale service providing facility as the manufacturer has its own after sale service network.  It is contended that the complainant has never intimated the fact of any defect in the handset and after use of the same for some days if he found defect in the handset, then it is the responsibility of manufacturer to undertake repair within warranty period.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 has neither filed counter nor participated in this 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 not deposited the set before this Forum and till date he 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, 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 J7 prime handset from OP.1 for Rs.16, 900/- on dt.11.05.2017 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 he found voice call, internet and set dead problems in the handset after few days of purchase for which he handed over the set to OP.2 as per advice of OP.1 on 14.12.2017. Since then the complainant is running after the OP.2 to get back his handset repaired.  The complainant has also filed an affidavit stating that he has submitted the handset before OP.2 on 14.12.2017 and his handset is still pending with OP.2 unrepaired.

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 incurring some expenditure.  As the defective set could not be repaired within the warranty period, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.16, 900/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.12.2017, the date of handing over of set to OP.2.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for cost.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel, a sum of Rs.3000/- towards costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.  We are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Op No.3 is directed to refund Rs.16, 900/- towards cost of handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.12.2017 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict).