In response to the direction given to the Op on 07/12/2010 he had taken the mobile set of the complainant and returned stating that he has serviced and it is now functioning properly.   The complainant after receipt of the set checked and submitted it is functioning satisfactorily.   It is further submitted there is no defect in the set but because of accumulation of dust one or two keys were not smoothly operating.   As the complainant reported to have satisfied with the service no further services required to be done except has demand for awarding cost.  

                 It is found from the proceeding that the Op after receipt of the legal notice issued by the complainant contacted the complainant telephonically and requested him to give the mobile set for the check up for repair but the complainant did not respond to it.   If he had responded then the duty could have cast on the Op to attend to the complainant and to set right the grievance, but the complainant did not give such an option to him.   The previous attitude of the employee of the Ops, if they had not responded to the complainant properly cannot be taken as a factor for awarding damages and cost.    Hence, the complaint is closed since the substantive request of the complainant is met.

                 Original record produced by the complainant be return to him.

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                         PRESIDENT