Kerala

Kottayam

CC44/2009

Mohanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K VINOD

08 Sep 2009

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. CC44/2009

Mohanan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present.

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.


 

CC.No.44/09

Tuesday, the day of 8th, September, 2009.


 

Petitioner. Mohanan

Porunnakottu house

Uzhavoor.P.O.

Uzhavoor village

Kottayam.

(Adv.K.Vinod)

Vs.

Opposite parties. 1. The Manager

Amal View Electronics

Kattakayam Kunjamma Tower

Pala.

2. The Managing Director

MOTROLA (U) Ucom

Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Having it Corporate Office

At A-26 B-1 Extension

Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate

Madhura Road

New Delhi-11004.


 

O R D E R


 

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member.

The case of the complainant is as follows.

He had purchased mobile phone Motrola W 375 from the Ist opposite party on 14-10-2008 for an amount of Rs.2500/- which was manufactured by the 2nds opposite party. After two days of purchase the said mobile phone


 

-2-

became defective and it was automatically switching off and was

inoperative. He contacted the Ist opposite party on 18.10.2008. Then they told that it was minor detect and they will repair the same. Thereafter Ist opposite party given the mobile phone after one week stating that they cured the defect. Again on 17.11.2008 the same complaint was happened to the mobile phone. But the same defects repeated many times. On the last week of December the mobile phone became totally useless. Since the complainant is an auto driver the defect of the mobile materially affected his income. Thereafter on 29-12-2008 the complainant returned the mobile phone to the Ist opposite party and demanded to issue a fresh mobile phone. They collect mobile phone along with the warranty paper and issued the service card. They told that they would repair the mobile phone. But due to the past experience complainant demanded either the prize of the mobile or a fresh mobile phone instead of the earlier one. Then the Ist opposite party threatened complainant and abused him. The complainant made a complaint before SI of police, Pala. But there was no effective remedy on the part of the police and then he issued a lawyers notice to the Ist opposite party. But the opposite parties did not settle the matter or sent any reply. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the inconvinence caused to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

The notices were served with the opposite parties. They did not appear before this forum either in person or through their counsel even afteraccepting the notice from this forum. Hence both opposite parties are

-3-

set exparte.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which were marked as exhibit A1 to A9. Heard complainant. The case of the complainant is that the mobile phone became defective within a short period after purchase. According to him the same defects happened repetedly. The opposite parties has not taken any steps to cure the defect as alleged in the complaint or to replace with a new mobile phone or the price of it. The sworn proof affidavit and documents of the complainant stands un-challenged by the opposite parties even after accepting the notice from this Forum. Hence we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severallyliable to compensate the complainant.

In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2500/- (ie.price of the mobile phone) to the complainant and pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for inconveniencesand pay Rs.750/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.


 

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/-

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/-

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-


 


 

-4-


 


 

APPENDIX

Documents for the petitioner:


 

Ext. A1: Invoice Dtd: 14..10..2008

Ext. A2: Copy of warranty

Ext. A3: Service Card

Ext. A4: Service card

Ext. A5: Service card Dtd: 29..12..2008

Ext. A6: Copy of notice Dtd: 30..1.2..2008

Ext. A7: C opy of lawyers notice Dtd: 31..12..2008

Ext. A8: Postal receipt

Ext. A9: Postal A/D Card.

By Order,


 

Senior Superintendent


 

Received on / Despatched on


 


 

KGR. 5 cs.




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P