Petitioner                                              :  Blessy Alex,

                                                               Kottayil House,

                                                               Nedukkunnam PO

                                                               Changanchery

                                                       Vs.

Opposite party                                     : Kerala Times and Mobile Phone shop

                                                              Municipal Arcade, Kavala,

                                                              Changanchery.

O R D E R

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

            The complainant’s case is as follows:

            The complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by Karbonn Company on 03/09/10.  The mobile phone vide model K2 17 is of cost  Rs. 3000/-.  At time of purchase the opposite party has not issued any bill, stating reason that discount will be allowed if bill is not issued.  The opposite party assured that they will rectify any defect and will be responsible for any problem of the said mobile.    So the complainant also has not insisted for bill.  On the 3^rd day of purchase of the said mobile phone it started showing complaints.  So the said mobile phone was entrusted to the opposite party shop on 8/9/10.  Even though the petitioner approached the opposite party several times, the opposite party was not ready to redress the complainant’s grievances.  At last on 9/10/10 the opposite party behaved very rudly to the complainant and told that the mobile will not be repaired. So the complainant alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party  and filed this complaint claiming replacement of the mobile or return of the repaired mobile along with compensation of Rs.2500/- and litigation cost.

            Notice was served to the opposite party.  But the opposite party was called absent and was set expartee.

Points for consideration are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?

ii)                    Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and Ext.A1.

Point No.1.

            As it was difficult for the complainant to conduct the case, she authorized her husband to conduct the case.  So the husband of the complainant deposed for the complainant.  As per his deposition,  his wife purchased a mobile phone of price Rs 3099/- on 03/09/10.  He further deposed that to get the discount of Rs.99/- the complainant chose not to receive the receipt.  It was next deposed that the mobile phone started showing complaints on the 3^rd day of purchase itself.  The complainant alleged that even though the said mobile was entrusted to the opposite party, the opposite party had not rectified the defective mobile or replaced the mobile till this date.  As the opposite party chose not to contest the deposition and the allegations of the complainant remain unchallenged.  The complainant produced a copy of job card dated 8/9/10 and it is marked as Ext.A1.  From Ext.A1 it is clear that the Karbonn K217 model mobile was entrusted to the opposite party on 8/9/10.  As per the deposition of the complainant the entrusted mobile phone was not returned to her.  In our view the acts of the opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service.  As the opposite party has not returned the mobile, they are liable to pay compensation for the loss of use of the said mobile also.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

            In view of the findings in point No.1, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party will give a brand new Karbonn K217 model mobile phone to the complainant.  The opposite party will also pay compensation of Rs. 2000/- towards the mental agony and loss of use of the mobile suffered by the complainant and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant.  This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the above mentioned awarded sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of November, 2010.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President  Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of the complainant

Ext.A1-Photocopy of Job card dated 8/9/2010

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

S/