| Complaint Case No. CC/11/23 |
| | | | 1. Narra Venkatramaiah, S/o. Narayana, | | Age:35 Years,Occ:Agriculture Coolie, R/o.Mangalagudem (Kothuru), Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. | | Khammam | | Andhrapradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Couns & Couns Cell Shope, | | Wyra Road, Near LIC Office, Khammam Town & District. Rep. By its Proprietor. | | Khammam | | Andhrapradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 13th day of April, 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.23/2011 Between: Narra Venkatramaiah, S/o Narayana, Age:35years, Occu:Agril. Coolie, R/o Mangalagudem (Kothuru), Khammam Rurual Mandal, Khammam District. …. Complainant. And Couns & Couns Cell Shope, Rep. by its proprietor, Wyra Road, Near LIC Office, Khammam Town & District. …Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite party served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the resident of Mangalagudem (Kothuru), Khammam Rural Mandal, he is having a cell phone Nokia Model No.2310 and the opposite party is running cell phone mechanic shop, having their shop at Khammam town. The complainant approached the opposite party for rectifying the ringing problem of his phone on 09-10-2010. After receiving the phone, the opposite party had issued a bill No.13, dated 09-10-2010 by receiving Rs.200/- as service charge. The complainant further submitted that the opposite party received the said phone and asked the complainant to come by evening. As per the request of the opposite party, the complainant approached the shop of the opposite party by evening, at that time the opposite party stated that the phone was spoiled and it was a waste peace. For that the complainant questioned the opposite party that in the morning time as the opposite party assured him to rectify the problem. Further submitted that the opposite party with angry said that when he clears the problem then only he will give the phone to the complainant. For that on the next day with patience the complainant approached the opposite party to collect his phone, but the opposite party kept silent. The opposite party intentionally disturbed the cell phone and also failed to return the phone and kept with him with a malafide intention to harass the complainant. The complainant submitted that the opposite party without rectifying the problem kept the cell phone with him is nothing but deficiency in service, for that the complainant suffered mental agony due to which he sustained financial loss. As such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 2. In support of his case, the complainant filed a bill No.13, dated 09-10-2010 for Rs.200/-, the same is marked as Ex.A1. 3. The complainant also filed written arguments. 4. Though notice received by the opposite party, he was called absent and no representation on their behalf and the matter is treated as heard. 5. Upon hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the material on record, now the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim? 2) To what relief? Point No.1:- In this case the complainant approached the opposite party for rectifying the ringing problem of cell phone Nokia Model No.2310. As per the complainant, at the time of receiving the phone, opposite party observed the problem of the phone and promised that he will rectify the problem and return the phone on the same day. In the evening when the complainant approached the opposite party to collect his phone, the opposite party failed to return the phone. For that the complainant approached this Forum. From the material available on record we observed that the opposite party received Nokia phone Model No.2310 from the complainant for rectifying the ringing problem. Even after receiving notice the opposite party failed to respond, either to appear before this Forum or to return the phone to the complainant by rectifying the problem, this act is nothing but deficiency in service. As such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. Point No.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the phone Nokia Model No.2310, by rectifying the ringing problem to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards damages. And also directed the opposite party to pay the amount within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment. Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 13th day of April, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant:- - None - Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None - Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Bill No.13, dated 09-10-2010 for Rs.200/-. Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM | |
