Mahadeva filed a consumer case on 18 May 2010 against Mobile Palace in the Mysore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/10/135 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Mysore
CC/10/135
Mahadeva - Complainant(s)
Versus
Mobile Palace - Opp.Party(s)
18 May 2010
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/135
Mahadeva
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Mobile Palace
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
18.05.2010 : Stage: For orders Complainant : Inperson O.P. : Exparte 1. The complainant has alleged that on 06.02.2010, he had given his mobile handset to the opposite party to imbibe IMEI Number with Nokia Company Battery. While, returning the handset, complainant observed that the opposite party changed the battery, which was in good condition worth Rs.550/-. The battery fixed in the handset is of low quality worth Rs.150/-. 2. The opposite party in spite of due service of the notice has remained absent, set exparte. 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments for the complainant in person and perused the records. 4. Now, we have to consider, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled for reliefs sought? 5. For the following reasons, our finding is partly in affirmative. REASONS 6. The allegation made by the complainant in the complaint that the opposite party changed the battery of low quality, is stated by him in the accompanying affidavit. In spite of due service of the notice, the opposite party has remained exparte. Considering the facts, absolutely, we have no reasons to dis-believe the case put both by the complainant. Hence, from the evidence, it is proved by the complainant that, the opposite party has changed battery of the mobile handset of the complainant to low quality, for the earlier Nokia company. The deficiency alleged is proved. Accordingly, following order. ORDER 1. The complaint is partly allowed. 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay cost of the battery amount to Rs.550/- within a month from the date of the order, failing which, amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. 3. Further, opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 4. Give a copy of this order to the complainant according to Rules.