COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 31st JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1399/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.D.Shantesh,<br /> S/o Late Dharmapalaiah,<br /> Aged 44 years,<br /> Working as Manager,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> ‘DHARMAMITRA” 5th Main,<br /> 1st Cross, Batawadi,<br /> Tumkur – 572 106.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. BHARTHIS,<br /> Represented by its proprietor,<br /> No.18, 9th Main, 4th Block,<br /> Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective mobile or refund the cost of the same and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased Nokia mobile model 6300 vide invoice No.426 for a valid consideration of Rs.7,350/- from OP on 12.04.2008. It carried warranty of a year. After taking delivery of the said phone, he was unable to get the proper ring tone, volume was too less. He immediately contacted the OP and narrated the defects found in the said handset, there was no proper response. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Ultimately he approached Nokia care center at Jayanagar. They on examining the said set told him that there is a defect with the speaker and at his cost he got it replaced on 16.04.2008. Thereafter also he could not get the effective service of the said handset. OP failed to respond to his demands. Thus he felt unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one Nokia mobile handset model 6300 from OP under invoice No.426 for a valid consideration of Rs.7,350/- on 12.04.2008. He has produced the invoice. According to the complainant it carried warranty for a year but unfortunately within a span of few days he noticed defect in the said handset. The ring tone was not up to the mark, volume was too less, he was unable to hear the sound. Then he immediately approached the OP, OP didn’t respond him properly.<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended by the complainant that as he was badly in need of said cell phone service he approached Nokia Care and shown it to them. They have noticed the complaint with regard to speaker, battery etc., cured the same at his cost and returned it to him. Thereafter also he was unable to use the said phone because of inherent manufacturing defect. The said service job sheet of Nokia care is also produced.<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Complainant happens to be the Manager of the State Bank of Mysore at Tumkur. He purchased the said mobile by investing his hard earned money to facilitate his profession and to promote his business. Unfortunately he is unable to utilize the services of the said phone. OP is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Due to the negligence and carelessness of the OP, complainant is put to greater hardship and prejudice. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the said defective mobile handset with a brand new defect free set within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which OP is directed to refund the cost of the mobile Rs.7,067/- and take back the defective set from the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />