For Complainant : Self
For OP. 1 : Awanish Kumar, Advocate & associates.
For OP.2 & 3 : Sri Santosh Ku. Mishra, Advocate & associate.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she purchased a Samsung Galaxy ON7 IMEI No.345733074069665 & 345733074069663 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.ghz20151200026989 dt.03.6.2016 for Rs.10, 990/- and after 2 months of purchase the set became hang and heat for which it could not be used. The handset was produced before ASC at Bhubaneswar who repaired the set then and there without maintaining job sheet. It is submitted that during December, 2016 the old problems returned besides a new problem i.e. screen light always ON. The complainant approached the ASC at Bhubaneswar who repaired the set but in spite of repairs, the problems could not be rectified as because due to set heat and hang. Again during Feb-17 the same problem became acute for which the set was handed over to OP.2 at Jeypore on 28.2.2017. The OP.2 after a week returned the set but after two days of repair, the complainant found auto switch off problem again and again and the set is lying unused. Thus alleging defect in goods, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.10, 990/- towards cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 03.6.2016 and to pay Rs.15, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 filed counter contending that it is a registered seller on the website “flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers and it has separate entity from that of the manufacturer of the product i.e. OP.3. As such there is no dispute between the complainant and OP.1 and the complaint lies only against the manufacturer and its ASC if not provided after sale service and the OP.1 has no role in providing any service to the customers. It is further contended that the product after purchased by the complainant has been safely delivered to her and that the OP has no knowledge about the defects in the handset and repair at different places and hence the OP.1 is not liable for any deficient service provided to the complainant. With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 has prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The Ops 2 & 3 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant that she had approached the service centre at Bhubaneswar for set hang and heat problems and the ASC returns the handset with repair without delivering job sheet. However, the Ops admitted about problems noticed in the handset during Dec., 2016 and Feb., 2017 for which the set was handed over to ASC for set hang and heat problems. It is contended that the set was repaired by the ASC as and when produced before it but denied any manufacturing defect in the handset as no expert opinion is furnished by the complainant. Thus denying any fault on its part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of her case. The OP.1 filed affidavit. Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case, purchase of Samsung Galaxy ON7 IMEI No.345733074069665 & 345733074069663 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.ghz20151200026989 dt.03.6.2016 for Rs.10, 990/- is an admitted fact. The complainant stated that after 2 months of its use, she found hang and heat problems in the set for which she handed over the set to ASC at Bhubaneswar who repaired the set without issuing job sheet. Again during Dec., 2016 the same problem returned besides screen light always ON problem and the set was repaired by the ASC at Bhubaneswar also. During Feb., 2016, the same problems were noticed besides networking problem and as the problems became acute the set was handed over to OP.2 at Jeypore on 28.2.2017. After two days of repair by OP.2, the complainant found auto switch off of the set repeatedly and the set is lying unused.
5. In this case, repeated repair to the handset of the complainant is admitted by Ops in their counter and they stated that the set was repaired as and when produced by the complainant. It is seen that the set was showing defects several times during warranty period. Again when the warranty period was in force, the set was handed over to OP.2 on 28.02.2017. The complainant alleges about manufacturing defect in the set.
6. The Ops stated that the complainant cannot allege manufacturing defect in the set without expert opinion. The OP.2 in this case being the ASC, armed with technical experts is known to be an expert in our opinion. The ASCs repaired the set several times but could not bring it into order. Further after repeated repairs, the problems also returned and the set could not be used by the complainant with those problems. As such there is no need of calling for any further expert opinion in this case when the facts are apparent and within the knowledge of OP.2 and others. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that due to inherent manufacturing defect, the set could not be brought into order after repeated repairs by the ASCs of the manufacturer and thus the complainant is suffering. Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01.06.2017 i.e. the date of filing of this case and the responsibility goes to OP.3 as manufacturer. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as prayed for except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation. There is no case against OP No.1 as seller of the product, the manufacturer of which is OP No.3.
7. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.10, 990/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01.06.2017 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
