COMPLAINTS FILED ON:12.03.2012

DISPOSED ON: 31.07.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

31^st DAY OF JULY-2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                     PRESIDENT       

                      SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                           MEMBER                

COMPLAINT Nos.510/2012

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the old mobile handset or to refund the price of the handset amounting to Rs.4,815/- with interest at 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.10,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.

2. In spite of service of notice, Op failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.

3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. 

4.  Arguments from complainant’s side heard.

5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant.  On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that the complainant purchased mobile handset on 06.09.2010 from OP1 by paying Rs.4,815/-, the copy of the invoice is produced at Annexure-A.   After making use of the handset for three months, due to manufacturing defect there was a display problem in the handset.   In the month of January-2011, the complainant approached OP1 and explained that there was no display in the handset.   OP1 attended the repair and handed over the handset to the complainant on 08.02.2011.  Once again on 05.06.2011 there was no display in the handset.   The complainant gave the same complaint to the Op1 for repair and OP1 accepted the handset for service.   On 20.06.2011 OP directed the complainant to collect the handset which is repaired by it.   But OP1 instead of repairing or replacing the mobile handset which is having manufacturing defect informed the complainant to take back the handset and to handover the same to the Authorized Service Centre and to bear the repair charges.  OP1 neither repaired the said mobile handset nor replaced with a new one.   On 02.07.2011 the complainant got issued the Legal Notice to OP1 and OP2 the Manufacturer to replace the handset or to refund the amount paid.   The notice was duly served on OPs1 and 2.   Ops neither complied the demand nor replied for the notice. 

6. The mobile handset supplied to the complainant is having a manufacturing defect.   OP2 is the Manufacturer and Op1 is the Dealer.   Supplying the Manufacture defect handset is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.   Both Ops are liable to refund the amount collected towards the cost of the handset.   The very fact of Ops remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that Ops are admitting the claim of the complainant.   There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced.    The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid for the said handset amounting to Rs.4,815/- with interest at 12% p.a from 06.09.2010, till the date of realization along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

        The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

Ops are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,815/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 06.09.2010, till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31^st day of JULY-2012.)

MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT

Cs.