Kerala

Trissur

CC/06/437

K.S.Somasundaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S.Gulf Traders - Opp.Party(s)

K.N.Manoharan

31 Jul 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/437

K.S.Somasundaran
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M.S.Gulf Traders
BENQ, Benq Customer Care
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. K.S.Somasundaran

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. M.S.Gulf Traders 2. BENQ, Benq Customer Care

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. K.N.Manoharan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President Petitioner purchased a Mobile phone ‘BENQ’ Model M100 Sl.No.B3743802660-IMEI No.353596000338889 together with Idea Mobile connection on 14/9/05 from 1st Respondent, vide cash receipt dated 14/9/05 for Rs.4,500/-. The petitioner purchased the above phone only because the dealer promised and made him believe that it is the best instrument and the service is excellent and moreover it is covered by warranty for 2 years unlike others which are having only1 year warranty. Unfortunately, after 6 months the instrument showed complaints like hauling during receipt of calls and making calls resulting in difficulty in hearing and became useless. As is the practice the petitioner approached respondent 1, who asked to approach the 2nd respondent, who in turn returned the same after one week saying that they have rectified the defect. Same trouble started for the set again and he approached 2nd respondent and it was learnt that the complaint is for the speaker and it has to come from Ernakulam center for replacement and required to keep the phone with them. After one week when the petitioner approached 2nd respondent they informed that they have not received speaker and returned the instrument and said that they will inform him on receipt of it. But there was no response and again approached 1st respondent on 29/5/06 and also contacted 2nd respondent on 31/5/06. Still no response. Later on 14/6/06 the petitioner contacted the National dealer who informed that this model has been withdrawn from the market and hence is not available. Hence the petition. 2. The respondents called absent and set exparte. 3. To prove the case of the petitioner, he has filed affidavit and 4 documents which are marked as Exhibits P1 to P4. 4. According to the petitioner he is entitled to replacement of the instrument with a latest model and payment of Rs.25,000/- towards mental harassments and damages. Or taking back the instrument and pay Rs.35,000/- towards expenses and damages. 5. There is no counter evidence. 6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to replace a new phone with a latest model and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 31st day of July 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.