Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/10/98

ABDULKALAM K - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER,TATA INDICOM ERXCLUSIVE STORE - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2010

ORDER


KOZHIKODECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Complaint Case No. CC/10/98
1. ABDULKALAM KPUTHUKKUDI (H),KARANTHUR PO,673571KOZHIKODE ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. MANAGER,TATA INDICOM ERXCLUSIVE STORESEAMAX TOWERS,VANDIPETTY,673011KOZHIKODE ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB., ,PRESIDENTHONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA., ,MemberHONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB., ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 25 May 2010
JUDGEMENT

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.

 

By L. Jyothikumar, Member:

 

            The complaint was filed on 5-3-2010. The complainant had purchased Tata Mobile phone from the opposite party.  Cost of the phone was Rs.1200/-.  On 6th day the mobile set went out of order. The complainant met the opposite party and requested to arrange for repair and accordingly the opposite party received the same on 9-10-09 for repair and told him to take its delivery after a few days.  Thereafter complainant had approached opposite party several times.  They did not give the mobile set.  The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for not get it repaired or replaced.

 

            Notice sent to the opposite party was served.  When the case was posted for the appearance, the opposite party was not present,  hence called absent and set exparte.

 

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked on complainant’s side.  From the evidence and Exhibits the case of the complainant is proved.  Several times the complainant had approached opposite party to get the mobile phone repaired or replaced.  Even though the complainant had informed the deficiency in service, the opposite party did not take any steps to redress the grievance.  Hence the Forum is of the opinion that the opposite party was deficient in service.

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the cost of the mobile set Rs.1200/- and compensation of Rs.250/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 25th  day of May 2010.

 

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.  Photocopy of receipt dt. 9-10-09

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.  Abdul Karam.K. (Complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party:

                        None

 

                                                                        Sd/- President

 

                                    // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.

 

 


[HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member