Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

2.        None appears. The matter is of 2008 and without calling for DFR, we are inclined to go through the impugned order and other materials on record and to dispose of the case.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a Nokia Mobile Handset on 22.01.2008 on payment of due consideration .It has got warranty period. It is alleged inter alia that the mobile gave operational problem since the date of purchase. He took notice to the O.P to replace the defective mobile set on 16.02.2008. The replace set also gave problem. It was brought to the notice of O.P no.1. The O.P asked the complainant to bring the mobile to the Nokia Care Center. The complainant also came on 01.03.2008 and submitted the mobile to OP who advised for software problem and collected defective mobile set from the complainant  and granted  a service job sheet but the set could not be repaired as the same was to be sent to Kolkata for repair. He waited for some days but could not repair. So he filed the complaint.

4.       The O.P No.1 filed the written version stating that the complainant has purchased the mobile set from O.P.no.1 with warranty period.  The O.P also stated in the written version that he has no knowledge about problem given by the second mobile.

5.        The O.P.No.2 filed written version stating that on examination  the service personnel  opined that for up-gradation of the software and up gradation of down loading problems for which the same was not possible to be repaired in one day but the complainant demanded to return the mobile set .

6.        The O.P.No.3 filed written version stating that the mobile set has extended warranty  for a period of 12 months. However, since the complainant co-operate for repair for 2^nd mobile, they have not  repaired.

7.        After hearing of both parties the learned District Forum has passed the impugned  order which as follows:-

                        Xxx                  xxx                     xxx

That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest  without cost. All the O.ps are jointly and severally liable for their deficiency of service caused to the complainant. They are to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) each to the complainant within three months from the date of this order. The defective set found with the  O.ps is to be retained by them for their purpose. Parties are to bear their own cost.”

8.        In the appeal memo, it has stated that the learned District Forum without applying judicial mind has passed the impugned order. The O.P extended warranty and the complainant has not availed their service and instructed immediately repairs. They have got no deficiency in service. Learned District Forum should have considered the plea of the O.P and decided the case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

9.        Considered the submission. Perused the impugned order. It is admitted fact that the complainant has  purchased the mobile set  which was defective and 2^nd mobile became also defective.  It is also admitted fact  that the complainant  also handed over extended warranty period also but again 2^nd one became defective  after repairing. Considering the fact, if the complainant suffered for non use of the mobile set, there is deficiency  in service on the part of the O.P. Therefore, we find that there is no justification to interfere with  the impugned order.  Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.