DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of December, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President (I/C)<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.97/2007<br /> Gopi.K.M.Kaimattathil,<br /> Chandranagar.P.O, Chembalode,<br /> Palakkad.<br /> (H.M., G.U.P.S, Vennakkara) - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> Cell Fort,<br /> Represented by its Manager/Proprietor,<br /> Mobile Phone sales & Service,<br /> G.B.Road, Behind Noorjahan Hotel,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> The complainant in this case had purchased a Motorola L-7 hand set for Rs.6,600/- from 1st opposite party's shop. At the time of purchase, opposite party had issued a warranty for one year. The complainant alleges that on the next day of the purchase itself, the hand set was seen defective. There was no incoming calls. This was informed to the opposite party immediately. The complainant further submits that on verifying the users manual another persons name was mentioned. When the handset was tested, used time was also noted. The complainant went to the opposite party shop and handed over the hand set on 23.07.07 and demanded for replacement. The opposite party informed the complainant that there was no stock at present and asked him to come over after 2-3 days. Accordingly, the complainant went to the opposite <br /> <br /> party shop on 25-07-07. The opposite party told him that the old set had been rectified by servicing it and there will be no problems hereafter and returned the same hand set itself.<br /> <br /> The complainant alleges that at the time of selling, the opposite party was fully aware of the fact that it was a second hand one and defective. The act of opposite party is quite unfair trade practice. Hence he has filed this complaint seeking an order to direct the opposite party to refund the price of the hand set along with compensation and costs. <br /> <br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Opposite party failed to appear before the forum inspite of accepting the notice. Hence he was called and set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. We have perused the affidavit as well as documents produced before the forum. It is true from Ext.A1 that the complainant had purchased a Motorola L-7 hand set for Rs.6,600/- from the opposite party on 07-07-07. From Ext.A2 it is noticed that the said hand set is provided with one year warranty. The motomanual of the said hand set which was marked as Ext.A3 shows that it bears another name other than the complainant. there is no ground to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that the used time was seen in the hand set, when tested after the purchase of the same. Hence we are of the view that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice. In the result the complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> Hence we direct the 1st opposite party to replace the old hand set by a <br /> <br /> brand new one or to refund Rs.6,600/- being the price of the hand set along with Rs.500/- as costs within one month from the date of communication of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 8% interest for the aforesaid amount from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of December, 2007 <br /> <br /> President I/C (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Purchase Cash bill dtd.07/07/07<br /> Ext.A2 – Warranty card<br /> Ext.A3 – User manual <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Nil<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order, <br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent <br />