CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 260/2009 Friday, the 30th day of April, 2010 Petitioner : Salu, Chittezhathu House, Palliprathusserry P.O Vaikom, Kottayam (By P.V Krishnakumar) Vs. Opposite party : The Proprietor, M/s. MAX Mobile Care Ankans Arcode, Kacherikavala, Vaikom. (By Adv. Pillai Jayaprakash Raveendran) O R D E R Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan,Member. The case of the complainant fild on 28..8..2009, is as follows: He had purchased a Nokia 2630 Model Mobile hand set from the opposite party on 20..10..2008 for an amount of Rs. 3,800/-. While so on 23..3..2009 the mobile hand set became defective as there was no display. The matter was intimated to the opposite party immediately after the defects. The opposite party has not taken any steps either to cure the defects or to replace the defective hand set. On 5..6..2009 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party. But the notice was not accepted by the opposite party and returned it to the complainant. The complainant had purchased the mobile hand set on the assurance given by the opposite party that they shall rectify or replace the hand set if it noticed any defects. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. -2- The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared but they did filed any version in time. However, in the interest of justice, we allow the opposite party to file version on condition that opposite party shall pay cost of Rs. 200/- to the legal benefit fund of CDRF. But they did not remit the cost as ordered and there after they did not appear before this Forum. Hence opposite party set ex-parte. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Ext. A1 o A5. Heard complainant. We have gone through the complaint, documents and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not do anything to rectify or replace the defective mobile hand set which was purchased from the opposite party. According to him the negligent act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part from which he had sustained less and sufferings. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party,. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. In the result the complaint is allowed as follows: We direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 3,800/- (ie. the price of the mobile hand set) to the complainant and pay Rs. 750/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs. 750/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 4cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
