SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

Filed on 09/09/2008

  Complainant's case is as follows. Complainant is working as temporary postmaster or postman in Aryadu North Post Office.  He is also the secretary of 'Gurudeva Prarthana Samathi & charamadina sahaya Fund' which extends monetary assistance to the post-funeral rites held in the house of its members. To contact its members and office ­bearers, the complainant, on 14^th September 2007 purchased a mobile hand set from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1900/-.  Within not less than a month, viz.9^th October 2007 during the course of its use, instantaneously the set fell dead. On 10^th October 2007, the complainant took the set to the opposite party and as was instructed, the set was entrusted to its service centre for repair. The same day itself, the opposite party gave back the set to the complainant. The opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the mistake therein was in the software and as such, the said software was replaced. Two days later, when the mobile set was in use, it displayed the same defect and was taken to the service centre. The complainant was informed that, for a perfect revamp, the set is to be sent to the Eranakulam service centre and the complainant entrusted the mobile hand set for the same. On 19^th October the opposite party, after repair handed back the handset to the complainant.  Thereafter on 17^th December the very same malfunctioning was repeated and the complainant, yet again approached the opposite party. To the surprise of the complainant, he was told that the hand set was to be sent over again to Ernakulam to resolve its impairment. The complainant was disinclined for the same. On 24^th December, 2007, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party demanding either the purchase price of the mobile set or a similar set afresh. The complainant sustained immeasurable mental agony and inconvenience at the hands of the opposite party. Aggrieved by this, the present complaint has been filed seeking a direction to be given to the opposite party either to give the cost of the complainant's mobile set or replace the same with another anew and compensation.

           2.  Notice sent to the opposite parties. Though the opposite parties turned up through their counsel, neither the version nor evidence was adduced.

3. On the side of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit and .documents Exts. Al to A7 were marked. Ext.Al is the postal receipt and acknowledgement.  A2 is the bill, A3, 4, 5&6 are the copy of the service job sheet and A7 is the copy of the notice, complainant sent to the opposite party.

                        4.   Taking  into  account  the  contentions  of  the  complainant  the  questions arise

for  consideration  is whether the complainant entitled to the relief as sought for the complainant?

5. Complainant purchased a mobile hand set from the opposite party. Since its purchase, time and again it ran out of use. The complainant approached the opposite party. On each occasion, the set was got repaired only to fell inoperative within a few days. Even some times, the mobile hand set broke down the same day of its repair. The opposite party even sent the instrument for adept repair to Ernakulam. The complainant had to wait many days. Still the outcome was discouraging. The fate of the set remained same. The complainant, as a last resort sent a notice demanding either his purchase money back or a fresh similar handset. The opposite party turned its back on the said demand. Whatsoever averred have been borne out by the materials the complainant placed on record. As we have afore noted, the opposite party though appeared did not make it a point to file version nor to adduce evidence. Needless to say, the evidence adduced by the complainants remains unrebutted. We have no other course open but accept the version of the complainant. The complainant sustained untold mental agony and hardship. Obviously the complainant is entitled to compensation as to this point.

In this back drop, the opposite parties are directed to pay the purchase amount of the mobile set viz. Rs. 1900/- (Rupees one thousand and nine hundred only) to the complainant. They are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the comp1ainant. The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs.1000/-(Rupees thousand only).

The complaint is allowed.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of  May, 2010.

Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt.N. Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1 series    -                       Postal receipt & acknowledgement card

Ext.A2             -                       Bill for Rs.1900/-

Ext.A3             -                       Job work sheet dtd. 10.10.07 (Photo copy)

Ext.A4             -                       Job work sheet dtd. 12.10.07 (Photo copy)

Ext.A5             -                       Job work sheet dtd. 26.10.07 (Photo copy)

Ext.A6             -                       Job work sheet dtd. 12.11.07 (Photo copy)

Ext.A7             -                       Letter dated 24.12.2007 (Photo copy)

Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil 

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                        By Order

                                                                                                             Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-

Compared by:-