This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.M.Vijay Bhaskar, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Notice of opposite party No.2 served; case against opposite party No.3 is dismissed; upon perusing the material papers on record; this forum passed the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Nokia 6233 model cell phone from the opposite party No.1 on 8-9-2007 for Rs.8,250/- vide bill No.1765 with one year warranty and used the same upto August, 2008, suddenly the cell phone started giving troubles and lost its signal and as such the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and handed over the defective piece by making a complaint. The opposite party No.1 sent the same to the authorized service center, Vijayawada and as per their Job Sheet, the delivery date is on or before 19-9-2008, but failed to return the mobile piece till the date of complaint. The complainant further submitted that the opposite party neither rectified the defects nor returned the mobile piece even after so many approaches and requests and as such it amounts to deficiency of service and prayed to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective piece with a new one and to pay Rs.10,000/- for causing inconvenience and other expenses.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed the following Photostat copies of documents and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2.
Ex.A.1 - Bill, dated 8-9-2007 for Rs.8250/-
Ex.A.2 - Service Job Sheet, dt.25-8-2008
3. After receipt of notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel, but failed to contest the matter, even after giving number of adjournments. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 neither appeared nor filed any counter.
4. As seen from the above facts and circumstances, the complainant handed over his cell phone to the opposite party No.1 for rectification of defects on 25-8-2008 and it is the case of the complainant that the same was not returned till the date of complaint. The opposite party No.1, who appeared before this Forum did not choose to file any counter and not clarified about the compliance of the defects arose in the cell phone. As per the attitude of the opposite parties, it is clear that the complainant suffered inconvenience and approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance. The non-rectification of defects and the keeping of cell phone with them definitely amounts to deficiency in service and as such the point is answered accordingly against the opposite parties by holding that the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects of the cell phone and also liable to pay the damages for causing inconvenience to the complainant.
5. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to handover the cell phone to the complainant by rectifying the defects and further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards damages for causing inconvenience and Rs.500/- towards costs of the litigation.
Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 16th day of July, 2010.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: -None-
Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Bill, dated 8-9-2007 for Rs.8250/-
Ex.A.2 - Service Job Sheet, dt.25-8-2008
Exhibits marked for opposite parties: -Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
