Kerala

Malappuram

OP/04/84

PUTHUKUDY HYDERALI, S/O. POCKER - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, RELIANCE WEB STORES Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2007

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/04/84

PUTHUKUDY HYDERALI, S/O. POCKER
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

MANAGER, RELIANCE WEB STORES Pvt. Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


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

Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. According to the complainant he purchased a car charger of mobile phone on 9-7-04 from opposite party. The charger was found to be defective within 4 days of purchase. Opposite party refused to replace the defective charger with a new one. Due to this his mobile phone also was damaged. Hence the complaint. 2. Opposite party filed version contending that being the dealer no guarantee or warranty is pro provided for the car charger. That they are not liable to pay the claim of the petitioner. 3. Complainant was personally present. MO1 mobile car charger produced. Ext.A1 marked. 4. Ext.A1 is the bill for the purchase of the charger which shows the price as Rs.1030/-. Complainant has not produced any warranty card. MO1 is produced along with its' thick plastic cover. On the reverse side of the cover the specifications and details are printed. The M.R.P. Printed is Rs.1030/-. The manufacturer is Samsung. It is printed that repairs are only available through Samsung. No conditions of guarantee or warranty are printed. In the complaint also complainant does not have a case that the product was sold with warranty for a specific period. At the time of hearing also complainant failed to submit that the product was purchased with a specific period of warranty. Although complainant alleges that his mobile phone was also damaged due to the non-replacement of the charger, he has not produced the phone. Complainant has abstained from furnishing the mobile phone number and connection details. There is absolutely no evidence to prove the contention that the mobile phone is also damaged. At the time of hearing counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite party was ready to replace the charger. Complainant was not willing to accept the replacement. 5. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to refund Rs.1030/- (Rupees One thousand and thirty only) being the price of the charger to the complainant along with cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. MO1 shall be returned to opposite party after the appeal time on his making an application for the same. Dated this 8th day of October, 2007. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 Ext.A1 : Bill for the purchase of the charger Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER