THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.495/2012
Dated this the 25th day of November 2014.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
ORDER
By Beena Joseph, Member:
The petition was filed on 16.11.2012. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Nokia C5 model Mobile phone from the opposite party worth Rs.7650/- on 16.05.2012, which became defective within one month. And the above mobile was replaced by the company, that the second mobile also became default within four months from the date of purchase. That was entrusted with the second opposite party on 18.10.12. After wards the above mobile was repaid or replaced by the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Notice issued to both parties . Both of them appeared. Opposite party filed version stating that the above mobile phone was replaced once, and on 18.10.12 complainant entrusted the mobile for repair but so far he is not enquired with the service centre. And they are ready to exchange a mobile worth same price. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. And he was cross examined by the Opposite parties. Opposite party adduced defense evidence stating that there was no negligence on their part. And manufacture of the mobile were not made party to the proceedings.
Considering the evidence and documents in total it is very clear that the complainant entrusted his mobile phone within the warranty period to the opposite party. The mobile was repaid by the opposite party, but the complainant was not enquired thereafter with the opposite parties. The opposite party admitted before this forum that the above phone were with them and the same was repaired by them and ready to hand over to the complainant or they are willing to given a new phone for the same price. But the complainant is so adamant in getting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as per his affidavit. The actual claim of the complainant is Rs.18150/- as per his complaint. In this matter there was no amendment on the part of the complainant to get enhanced compensation. The complainant claims that he has sustained damages Rs.1,00,000/- as travel expenses and litigation expenses. There was no document produced on the part the complainant to prove the same . Hence this forum is not in a position to accept the allegation of the complainant.
In the above matter respondents are ready and willing to give a new phone worth same price. In these circumstances petition is allowed in part. In the result respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.7,650/-(Rupees seven thousand six hundred and fifty only) towards the price of the mobile phone and to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as cost for inconvenience caused to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of November 2014.
Date of filing:16.11.2012.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Service Job sheet issued by the opposite party to the complainant
A2. Invoice for Rs. 7650/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant
A3. Note issued by the opposite party to the complainant
A4. Complaint submitted by the complainant
Documents exhibited for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. M. Joy (complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Sandhya K. Nair, Thazhathu Parambu. Mangothu vayal, Kootoli P.O., Calicut
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
