O R D E R This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to refund the value of mobile handset Rs.2900/- and Rs.15, 000/- as compensation with cost. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The complainant purchased a mobile handset model B.2050 for Rs.2900/- from the opposite party on 13, 10, 2006.She had obtained BSNL pre paid mobile connection for the same. The mobile set started making problem from the very first day onwards. If an out going call was make the complainant could not hear the ring tone and the person other end could not hear her. The same problem existed in incoming calls also. So also there were problems in sending and receiving SMS. The set was brought to the dealer and on verification opposite party convinced that the set was defective. Opposite party admitted that mother board had to be changed. Thus a complaint was registered on 30.12.2006. But the complainant was asked to keep the set with her and promised to inform the arrival of mother board. But they did not take any steps to solve the problem even though several visits and attempts were made. Finally on 30.1.2007the set was taken by the service centre for necessary repairs. The set was returned on 31.1.2007 with the assurance that the mother board was replaced. But the very next day the set stopped functioning. It was again taken to the service centre. Opposite party verified and found the set again faulty. Thus the mother board had to be replaced again. Though again repaired the set was started malfunctioning. The company has so far been notable to solve the defect of the set. Hence this complaint. Notice was issued to opposite party but he did not take care to come before the Forum. On perusal it is found that a letter denying the averments of the complainant was sent by an employee of the opposite party. Since he was not present, he was declared exparte. The main question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documents Ext.A1 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.A1, cash bill proves that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.2900/-. It is quite evident that the complainant approached the opposite party several times, but the problem of curing the defect for the handset was not solved. The opposite party did not take interest to appear before the forum and defend his case. Even though there is only exparte evidence, the cash bill Ext.A1 is quite enough to prove that the complainant purchased the handset from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.2900/-, The evidence adduced by the complainant proves that the set was defective and all the attempts of the complainant to get it condition became faulty. Opposite party was never sincere to solve the problem by curing the defect of mobile handset motherboard. Complainant was tactfully managed by one way or the other for a long time by the opposite party without getting the handset repaired fully well. Hence the available evidence shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant proved the price of Mobile handset but failed to prove that actual damages. Though it is quite evident that she had approached the opposite party several times. Hence we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice opposite party is liable to refund the value of the set together with cost of this proceeding. Thus the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2, 900/- as the price of the handset together with a sum of Rs.250/- as cost of this proceeding from the opposite party. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2900/- as the price of the mobile handset together with a sum ofRs.250/- as the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act, Sd/- sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Cash billdt.13.10.2006 issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for either side:Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.