<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 05th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2853/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Pradeep Kumar.RS/o R.Rama Krishna,# 97, 13th Main,Opp. Raghavendra Mutt,Raghavendra Block,Srinagar,Bangalore – 50.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Happy Cell Phone Links,# 87, TBR Complex,1st Cross, 5th Main,Opp. Thribuvan Theatre,Gandhinagar,Bangalore – 09.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one mobile handset from OP on 27.12.2008 for a total cost of Rs.1,500/-. The said mobile was sold to him in a sealed pocket. When he went to home and opened the pocket to his utter shock and surprise he noticed that the set sold to him is an old and used one. Not only that the sim card was activated long back on 08.12.2008 itself though complainant purchased it on 27.12.2008. Immediately he contacted the OP either to refund or replace with a brand new one. But all his efforts went in futile. Under such circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the notice. The service is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one new Haier mobile handset from OP on 27.12.2008 for a total cost of Rs.1,500/-. According to complainant, OP delivered a sealed box containing the handset. When he took it home and opened the box he noticed that the said set was old and used one. Even the sim card of the said mobile was activated long back on 08.12.2008, though he purchased it on 27.12.2008. He immediately contacted the OP either to replace or refund the cost but it went in vain. His repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. Hence he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration from the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of investment because of the unfair trade practice and hostile attitude of the OP. The non appearance of the OP and refusal to accept the summons leads us to draw an inference that OP admits allegations made by the complainant. When that is so, complainant deserves certain relief.<br /> <br /> 6. Of course claim of compensation of Rs.10,000/- has no basis. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP either to replace the said mobile handset with a brand new defect free one or refund the cost of the same with some nominal compensation and litigation cost. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the said mobile set sold to the complainant on 27.12.2008 with a brand new one for the same cost with respect to the same model and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Failing in which complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the said set Rs.1,500/- along compensation of Rs.2,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.500/- and OP to take back the set earlier to the complainant.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />