D.o.F:20/8/2013

D.o.O:30/01/2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.191/13

                  Dated this, the 30^th    day of January 2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G               : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

Manoj Kumar.A.V                                                       :

SARAS, Nethaji Nagar,

Padnakkad Post, 671314     Kasaragod .                      :          Complainant

 (in person)

1.Mobile Store, City Mall, Kanhangad.  :

Kasaragod.Dt.

2. Hello World, Udma Road, Chattanchal                      :        Opposite parties

Kasaragod.Dt.(Exparte)

ORDER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

    The case of the complainant is that he purchased one  Lava Mobile from the Ist opposite party on 22/11/2013 which has  one year guarantee within 6 months itself the handset was failed to function and repaired by the Ist opposite party twice and 2^nd opposite party herein required the handset on 3 times within 3 months.  Thereafter even though the Ist opposite party  has promised to substitute the mobile phone, he failed to do so and thereby the complainant sustained  mental pain and agony due to the deficiency in service from both sides.   Hence the petition.

    Notice to the opposite parties were served, but they were not  present and hence the name of the opposite parties were called and both of them were set exparte.

   The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced  documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by Ist opposite party evidencing that the complainant had purchased  Lava  400 for an amount of Rs.7200/- and Ext.A2 is the warranty certificate issued by Ist opposite party and Exts.A3&A4  are the service bills issued by the  Ist opposite party.  From Exts.A3&A4 it is crystal clear that the mobile was defective  and  on different occasion  and it is pertinent to note that it was within 6 months from the date of purchase of the mobile.  The opposite parties even after getting notice from the  Forum  failed to attend the Forum and challenged the allegations leveled  against them.  Therefore the  version of  PW1’s believable  on the basis of  this clear evidence before this Forum.

          Therefore we hold that the opposite party committed  deficiency in service and  hence they are liable to refund the amount obtained from the complainant.

            In the result the complaint is allowed  and the  Ist &2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally  directed to refund Rs. 7200/- (  the price of the mobile phone) on  receipt of the  mobile phone from the complainant and  opposite parties are further  directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings.   The  compliance  is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of  copy  of this order.  Failing which opposite  parties shall  be further liable to pay interest  @ 12%   for Rs.7200/- from the date of complaint  till date of payment.

Exts.

A1- bill issued by Ist opposite party

A2 -warranty certificate issued by Ist opposite party

A3&A4  - service bills issued the by opposite parties. 

PW1-Manojkumar.A.V- complainant

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT  

eva