By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. On 09-7-2008 complainant purchased a Nokia 5310 mobile phone for Rs.9,400/- from opposite party for which one year warranty was offered. The phone developed snags in November, 2008. Complainant approached opposite party and infromed about the defects. Opposite party took the phone assuring to rectify the defects. After few days opposite party swapped with another old phone of the same model. This phone also became defective in May, 2009. When complainant approached opposite party with the seriously defective phone opposite party assured to replace it after informing the company. A service job sheet was issued to the complainant and the phone was given to the custody of opposite party. On 05-6-2009 a youngster approached the complainant and introduced himself to be a person from opposite party shop tendered the old phone itself to complainant. Complainant refused to accept it. On 06-6-2009 when complainant approached opposite party he was told that opposite party could not do anything further in the matter. Complainant had to suffer much hardships and inconveniences due to the defects. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice issued to opposite party was served on 25-6-2009. Acknowledgement card was returned to the Forum which bears signature and seal of opposite party shop. But opposite party did not appear and did not file any version. Opposite party was set exparte on 20-7-2009. Complainant field affidavit on 04-8-2009 reiterating the contentions in the complaint. Ext.A1 to A3 was marked for the complainant. Ext.A1 bill proves that complainant purchased the mobile from opposite party for Rs.9,400/-. Ext.A3 is the service job sheet issued by opposite party to complainant on 19-5-2009 which proves that the mobile phone has complaints. It is also stated in Ext.A3 that the handset was once swapped. Case of the complainant stands proved. There is no contra evidence on the side of opposite party. We hold that the act of opposite party in selling a substandard product amounts to unfair trade practice. We find opposite parties guilty of unfair trade practice.

3. In the result we allow the complaint and order that opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs.9,400/- (Rupees Nine thousand four hundred only) together with costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 8th day of September, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1 : Bill dated, 09-7-2008 for Rs.9.400/- from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : User's guide given by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Service Job Sheet dated, 19-5-2009 from opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER