For Complainant         :           Self.

For OP No.1                 :           None.

For Ops 2 & 3              :           Sri Santosh. Ku. Mishra, Advocate & Associates.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy A5 Mobile handset Model SM-A500GZDDINS, IMEI No.359932064959019 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.1153 dt.07.04.2016 for Rs.16, 500/- but from the next month onwards of its purchase, the handset became hang repeatedly and the OP.2 (ASC) on approach brings it into order after brief repairs.  It is submitted that while the hang problem persists, other problems like set heat, display and charging problems noticed in the month of Dec., 2016.  The OP.2 received the set and returned it after 20 days with repair but did not issue job sheet.  Within a month of repair, all those problems returned again and again and hence the set was handed over to OP.2 on 10.2.2017, who issued job sheet for “Charging and display problems” but did not mention the set heat problem in the job sheet in spite of request.  After 15 days the OP.2 returned the set but the problems returned.  Charging and heat problem became acute.  It is also submitted that the set was handed over to OP.2 on 01.04.2017.  The OP.2 received the set for charging and display problem and issued job sheet but the ASC could not bring the set into order and the set is lying unused.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.16, 500/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.4.2016 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     In this case in spite of several opportunities the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the hearing.  Hence the matter was heard from the complainant at length for orders basing upon the materials available on record.  The OP.3 filed written argument on 08.06.2018.

3.                     It is seen that the purchase of Samsung Galaxy A5 Mobile handset SM-A500GZDDINS, IMEI No.359932064959019 from OP.1 is supported by copy of Invoice No.1153 dt.07.04.2016 for Rs.16, 500/-.  After one month of purchase of handset, the complainant noticed hang problem in the set and thereafter display problem during the month of Oct., 2016.  During December, 2016 the complainant has noticed set heat problem.  On approach the OP.2 (ASC) has attended the defects but the same were not rectified.  On 10.2.2017 the set was received by the OP.2 for charging and display problem with job sheet but after repair the problems returned.  Again the set was received by OP.2 on 01.4.2017 for “Set very hang and charging problem” with job sheet but after repair the problems also returned and according to the complainant, the set is lying unused.  The complainant has filed copy of above two job sheets.  From the above facts it became clear that the set of the complainant suffered multiple defects within its warranty period.

4.                     In absence of counter and participation of the Ops in the hearing, the allegations against the Ops remained unchallenged.  In the written argument, the OP.3 stated that the defect in handset is to be proved by the complainant.  However, the job sheet of OP.2 speaks many a things about the functioning of the handset as we discussed.  In the above circumstances, there is no scope before us to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant against the Ops.  The OP.2 being the ASC has tried its best but the set could not be brought into working order during its warranty period.  Hence it can be easily concluded that the set of the complainant bears inherent manufacturing defect for which in spite of several repairs the set is not functioning and lying unused.

5.                     In the above premises, the complainant should not suffer with the defective set and the OP.3 is to be directed to refund the cost of the handset at Rs.16, 500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase.  Further due to repeated repairs and nonfunctioning of the set in spite of such a huge investment, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.16, 500/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.04.2016 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation besides cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)