Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/111

M JOY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HAPPY CREATION S MOBILE WORLD - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.111/2015

JUDGMENT DATED : 11.03.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.495/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode order dated : 25.11.2014)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

M.Joy,

S/o.Yohannan Mathai,

C/o.Polachan Varuthunni,

Cherumadathil veedu,

V.I.P.Street, Near New Bus Stand,

Ankamali, Ernakulam

Pin – 683 572

VS

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Happy Creations Mobile World,

Nokia Priority Show Room,

Opposite KSRTC Bus Stand,

Mavoor Road,

Kozhikode District, Pin – 673 001

Rep.by its Manager

 

2. Happy Creations Nokia Care,

Land Ship Mall, Bank Road,

Mavoor Road Junction,

Kozhikkode District,

Pin – 673 004

Rep. By its Manager

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     :JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.495/2012 in the CDRF, Kozhikode. He had purchased a Nokia C 5 Model Mobile Phone from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.7650/- on 16.05.2012. According to the complainant that mobile phone became defective within one month and it was replaced by the first opposite party. But the replaced mobile also became defective within a period of four months. He entrusted the defective mobile phone with the second opposite party on 18.10.2012 but the opposite parties failed to repair or replace the mobile phone. Hence he approached the consumer forum.

          2.      The contention raised by the opposite parties was that the mobile phone was replaced once. They admitted that the complainant entrusted the mobile phone for repair on 18.10.2012. But there after he failed to enquire the matter with the service centre. They were ready to give another mobile phone worth the same price. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.      The consumer forum after recording evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.7650/- (the price of the mobile phone) and Rs.2000/- as cost. Not satisfied with the order. The complainant has come up in appeal. According to him the district consumer forum ought to have awarded compensation for the mental agony suffered by him. The complainant appeared in person at the time of admission of the appeal and he was heard in detail.

          4.      The District Forum noted that the mobile phone was presented for repairs within the warranty period . Further it was repaired by the opposite parties and as the complainant failed to receive the same back. The phone was with them at the time of disposal of complaint. The District Forum specifically took notice of the willingness of the opposite parties to hand over the repaired mobile phone to the complainant or in the alternative to give a new phone of the same price. The District Forum further noted the adamance of the complainant in getting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the actual claim in the complaint for Rs.18,150/-. The District Forum in the absence of evidence as to claimed loss did not award any compensation but awarded Rs.2000/- towards costs apart from directing the opposite parties to pay the price of the mobile. To say the least the order of the District Forum is most reasonable and fair. Before us also, the complainant / appellant was adamant in getting compensation. A consumer for that reason alone cannot dictate to the consumer forum what should be the order to be passed. Yet the appellant went to the extreme extent of insisting that order should be passed the way in which he wishes. But the circumstances available fully justifies the order of the District Consumer Forum. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence it is unnecessary to entertain the appeal and issue notice to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIALMEMBER

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.111/2015

JUDGMENT

 DATED : 11.03.2015

 

                                                                                                                                          Be/