1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung Galaxy Core – 2 Model-SM-G355HZWINS from the OP.1 on 04.06.2015 for Rs.7600/- and after 4 months of its use, the complainant found charging problem in the handset and set became dead after few days for which he as per advice of the OP handed over the set to ASC on 31.10.2015 at Jeypore for repair.  It is submitted that after verifying the set, the ASC disclosed the defect as Set burnt and charging section PBA defect and demanded some amount towards repair.  As the handset was under warranty the complainant did not pay the charge and as per advice of the ASC, the complainant also contacted the Company office who in turn advised to contact the ASC.  The complainant also submitted that the set is lying unused since then.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund the cost of the set with compensation and cost.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter admitting the sale of alleged handset by it in the capacity of an Agent of M/s. Sahu Enterprises, Koraput and contended that being a Salesman, he cannot be a party to this case.  It is also contended that the complaint petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that due to misuse of the handset, the charging section has been burnt and the mother board is required to be replaced without warranty.  It is further contended that the complainant has approached the ASC who issued a job sheet dt.31.10.2015 stating that the handset suffers warranty void due to misuse and the complainant was required to pay the repair charges but the complainant did not agree to pay the said charges.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP No.3 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in this proceeding.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case sale of alleged handset to the complainant by OP.1 is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that within 4 months of use the handset developed charging problem and got dead after few days.  The complainant has approached the ASC of Samsung on 31.10.2015 who after inspection opined that the set is burnt and charging section PBA defective.  The ASC has also issued job sheet accordingly which is available on record.  It is the further case of the complainant that the ASC demanded some amount towards repair and as he did not pay the demanded amount citing the reason that the set is under warranty, the ASC did not repair the set.

6.                     Perused the service job sheet dt.31.10.2015 and found that the defect as shown is “Set Dead, Set burnt and Charging Section PBA defective”.  The ASC has further stated that the defects noticed come under out of warranty case.  The ASC is armed with technicians and its report cannot be easily brushed aside.  As the complainant has handed over the set in a burnt state, naturally it comes under out of warranty case and some charges are required to pay by the complainant for its repair.  In this case, the complainant did not pay the repair charges and as such the handset could not be repaired by the ASC.  In the above circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is dismissed but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)