BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 173/2019 Filed on 13.06.2019
ORDER DATED: 27.09.2019
Complainant:
Shibukumar. D, Tharavattil, Keezhppaloor, Vinobanikethan P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 542.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Manager, Ascent Technologies, S.V. Tower, Plamoodu, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
This case having been heard on 27.08.2019, the Forum on 27.09.2019 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant had presented this complaint before this Forum under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that he had given his mobile phone (Panasonic Eluga Switch) for service to the opposite party. The opposite party had never returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Even though complainant had contacted the opposite party directly and over phone they never returned the phone to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the opposite party may be directed to pay the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant, for that effect he had filed this complaint before this Forum.
Even though opposite party received notice, they did not appear before this Forum and opposite party was set exparte.
Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
Issues (i) & (ii):- The complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced two documents which were marked as Exts. P1 & P2. Complainant alleges that due to deficiency in service of the opposite party, his mobile phone was not returned to him which was entrusted to the opposite party for service. The opposite party did not turned up. Hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant. From Exts. P1 & P2 it can be seen that the complainant had given his mobile phone to the opposite party for service and they never returned the mobile phone to the complainant. From Exts. P1 & P2 produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the mobile phone (Panasonic Eluga Switch) after service or to pay Rs. 13,750/- as the cost of the mobile phone and pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered and Rs. 1000/- towards cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 27th day of September 2019.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 173/2019
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Receipt No. 592 issued by opposite party to complainant
P2 - Receipt No. 442 issued by opposite party to complainant
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
