<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.02.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 01st APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.471/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr.Lakshmipathi,S/o M.Venkatesh Gowdu,Aged about 29 years,‘Sai Plaza,’ No.994,2nd Floor, 1st Main,1st Block, Koramangala,Bangalore – 560034.Advocate – Sri.S.M.ManjunathaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. ‘Mass Connects’Mobile Service Centre,Represented by its ownerMr.Mansoor,At No.10, Richmond Plaza,Richmond Circle,Bangalore – 560025.<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 Nokia N-72 or refund the cost of the same and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- 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 N-72 mobile hand set for Rs.9,700/- on 12.07.2007 from Nokia priority dealers Koramangala. Within a span of week or so he found defect with the said mobile. It was not showing display. Then he immediately contacted the OP the Nokia mobile service center. OP on examining the said set told him that they will charge Rs.800/- for repairs. Though complainant wanted only an opinion of the OP, but OP retained it more than four hours, attended to some defect but he is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. The said set carried one year warranty. Then complainant took back the said set and went to Nokia service center Koramangala on 21.12.2007. At that time it was told to the complainant that the said set is badly tampered by some one. Then complainant felt that it is the OP who tampered the said phone. Again he immediately came back to OP and demanded him either to replace or pay the cost but it went in vain. Complainant was made to move from pillar to post for several times. Complainant waited patiently for more than 5 months. There was no response from the OP. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of investment because of the carelessness, negligence and hostile attitude of the OP. Under such 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 is 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 /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that on 12.07.2007 he purchased Nokia N-72 mobile set for Rs.9,700/-. Bill is produced. Within a span of one week he noticed some problem with the said set. Actually there was no display in the handset hence he approached the OP. OP retained it for three hours with a promise to detect the defect and cure the same then demanded Rs.800/- for service charges. When complainant told him that it is under the warranty period of one year then OP returned the said set to him with a direction to approach Nokia service center Koramangala.<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. When complainant took the said set to Nokia service center, Koramangala, on examining the same the technicians told him that the set is badly tampered by some one hence they are unable to give the service. Complainant was shocked to hear the same because he has shown the said set to OP and OP has tampered it. Then immediately he contacted the OP. OP went on giving evasive answers then promised to replace the said set, but failed to do so. Complainant was made to move from pillar to post for several times, but the result is one and the same.<br /> <br /> 6. Complainant patiently waited for more than 5 months neither OP replaced the said hand set nor it is in a position to detect the defect and cure the same. It also failed to refund the cost of the set. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. Though complainant invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of OP. The non appearance of the OP even after the due service of the notice leads us to drawn an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under such circumstances we find there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to replace the said defective mobile handset with a brand new defect free set of same model Nokia N-72 with in four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which OP is directed to pay the cost of the mobile Rs.9,700/- and take back the defective set. 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 01st day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />