This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 28-07-11 in the presence of Sri P. Prasada Rao, advocate for complainant and of                             opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:- The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of mobile or Rs.3,000/- being the cost of mobile, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant on 28-10-10 purchased mobile manufactured by Karbon Company of K4111 series from the opposite party.    Since the date of purchase the mobile was not functioning properly.  On several occasions the complainant approached the opposite party for rectification of the problem.   On the advise of the opposite party the complainant approached the service centre at Vijayawada and they did not attend to the problem.   The opposite party neither replaced the mobile nor returned cost of the mobile inspite of notice.  The complaint therefore be allowed.  

3.    The opposite party remained exparte.

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant.

5.    Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.1:-   Under Ex.A-1 invoice/bill the complainant on             28-10-10 purchased mobile manufactured by Karbon Company of K4111 series. The complainant approached Service Centre, Vijayawada on 25-03-11 as seen from Ex.A4.  The relevant portion in Ex.A-5 warranty issued by the manufacturer revealed the following:

                “United Telelinks (Bangalore) Private Limited (‘UTL’) warrants to the purchaser (the customer) each of its ‘Karbonn’ branded mobile phone products (the equipment) sold by UTL through its authorized distributors are warranted to be free from defects in workmanship and material under normal use and service as given below, commencing from the date of purchase.

1. One (01) year for mobile phone (handset)
2. Six (06) months for batteries, charger and accessories”.

7.     The above averments revealed that there is warranty for a period of one year to the mobile.   Ex.A-4 revealed that within a period of one year the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 did not function properly.   The complainant did not make the manufacturer as a party to the complaint. The opposite party though received notice remained exparte.   Under those circumstances, passing an order against the opposite party will meet ends of justice.   Ex.A-5 service job sheet as observed already revealed that the mobile purchased did not function properly. 

8.      The registered notice sent to the opposite party returned as refused as seen from Ex.A-4 returned postal cover.    It can therefore be inferred that the opposite party is not attending to the requests of the complainant regarding the repairs of mobile which amounted to deficiency of service.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant. 

9.   POINT NO.2:-   The complainant did not aver anything regarding damages claimed by him.   In the absence of any averment regarding his entitlement to compensation we are of the view that no amount can be granted.  Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

10.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to replace the mobile which was sold under Ex.A-1.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- being cost of the mobile with interest from the date of complaint till payment if replacement is not possible.

                3.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/-                               (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

          Typed to my dictation by the Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of July 2011.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:    NIL                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

Ready by:

Compared by: