1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Samsung mobile handset J5 Model EMIE No.352672/07/069415/3 & 352673/07/069415/1 from OP.1 on 06.11.2015 for Rs.12, 300/- and after one month of its purchase the handset did not function for hang, sound and networking problems.  The complainant approached OP.3 who kept the set for 8 days and returned stating that the handset is defect free but after a week of use the problems returned.  On approach the OP.3 repaired the set then and there by updating the software but the complainant found the same problem after some days.  It is submitted that on further approach to OP.3, he stated that the handset cannot be repaired as it suffers from inherent manufacturing defect and for networking and hang problems, the handset is lying unused.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.12, 300/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 06.11.2015 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the sale of alleged handset to the complainant.  It is submitted that after some days of purchase, the complainant approached him with some defects in his handset and the OP.1 as a retailer advised the complainant to approach the OP.3 (ASC) and the complainant after this incident, the OP.1 contended that he does not know anything about the problems in the handset.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The Ops 2 & 3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has never approached the OP.3 with defective handset for repair within one month of its purchase for hanging, sound and networking problems.  The OP contended that those defects are not major defects and can be rectified by the ASC.  It is contended that the complainant has approached the service centre on 10.5.2015 with the defects in the handset and the OP.3 has rectified the defects by replacing the charging connector of the handset and thereafter the complainant has never visited the ASC with any complaint.  The Ops denying any inherent manufacturing defect in the handset contended that the defect of any nature can be repaired by the ASC.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed copy of invoice in support of purchase of handset.  Heard from the complainant and the A/R for Ops 2 & 3 and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case purchase of Samsung handset by the complainant from the OP.1 for Rs.12, 300/- on 06.11.2015 is proved in view of copy of retail invoice issued by the OP.1 which is available on record.  The complainant stated that after one month of purchase, hanging, sound and networking problems were noticed in the handset for which he as per advice of OP.1 approached to OP.3 and after 8 days OP.3 returned the handset with repair.  The Ops 2 & 3 in their counter stated that the complainant has never approached the ASC after one month of purchase of handset and till 09.05.16 the complainant has used the handset before approaching the ASC on 10.5.2016.  Neither the complainant nor the Ops 2 & 3 has filed any document in support of their contentions that the complainant had approached the ASC on the dates as claimed by them.  Hence from the admission of the parties, it became clear that the complainant has approached the ASC for the defects in the handset but in spite of repair the ASC has not issued service job sheet.

6.                     The OP No.1 (retailer) in his counter stated that the complainant after few days of purchase of handset has approached him with defective set for repair and he has advised the complainant to approach the ASC.  From the above discloser of the OP.1 it also became clear that after one month of purchase of handset it did not function properly.

7.                     The complainant further stated that after a week of repair the handset also did not function properly and on approach the OP.3 repaired the set then and there.  When the handset went out of order again after a week of repair, the complainant approached the OP.3 but it did not take up repair stating that the set has got inherent manufacturing defect. It was the duty of the Ops to register the complaint each time by issuing service job sheet but in this case no job sheet was issued.  Hence we firmly believe that the handset of the complainant became out of order again and again after its purchase but it could not be brought into order.  The Ops 2 & 3 stated that the problems were minor.   In our view, the problems may be minor in nature but when it repeats after repair it becomes headache to the purchaser.  From the above facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the handset has got some defects which could not be rectified by the Ops and hence the complainant is entitled to get back his money with interest.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we award a sum of Rs.1000/- towards costs in favour of the complainant.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to refund Rs.12, 300/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. 20.3.2016 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.)