DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of January 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 24/10/2010
(C.C.No. 156/2010)
Annamma Chacko
D/o.Joseph, Edat House,
Palakkayam Post
Kanjirapuzha Via,
Palakkad - 678591 - Complainant
V/s
Naseer,
Winner Watch & Radios,
Mannarkkad,
Palakkad - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt. BHANUMATHI.A.K, MEMBER
Brief case of the complainant.
The complainant purchased a mobile phone of NOKIA 1661 costing Rs.1800/ from the Opposite party on 2/1/2010. After a period of 9 months it became dead. Complainant approached the opposite party and entrusted the phone for repairing. At that time opposite party informed it will be given back after 8 days after effecting repair. As directed by the opposite party the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for the mobile phone but the opposite party did not give back. About 1½ month the complainant enquired and approached directly the opposite party for the mobile phone but the complainant did not get the phone repaired. At last on 22/11/10 when the complainant approached the opposite she was offered with an old mobile phone but she refused to accept the same. So the complainant alleges deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and is seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1800/ as price of the mobile phone and Rs.10,000/ as compensation.
Complaint admitted and opposite party set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 marked.
Matter heard.
Now the issues that arises for our consideration is that
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
If so, what is the relief and costs complainant is entitled to ?
Complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not delivering the mobile phone after effecting repair. Complainant purchased a NOKIA 1661 for an amount of Rs.1800/- Within the warranty period itself it became dead and the complainant entrusted the same to the opposite party. And it was informed that within 8 days it will be given back after getting repaired. But he did not do so. The complainant approached the opposite party several times but did not get the mobile. At last on 22/11/2010 the opposite party offered an old mobile phone. But the complainant refused to accept it. Ext.A1 document shows that the mobile phone costs Rs.1800/- and Ext.A2 document is the user's guide.
Within the warranty period there occurred the defect to the mobile phone but opposite party did not do the needful action. This can be considered as deficiency of service on their part. Moreover there is no contrary evidence to that one adduced by the complainant.
So the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the cost for the mobile phone Rs.1800/ and Rs.1000/ as compensation and Rs.500/ as cost. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on the 31st day of January 2011.
Sd/-
Smt.Seena H
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K Member
APPENDIX
Exhihbits marked on the side of the complaint
Ext.A1 – Mobile phone bill No.231, dated 2/1/10 of Winner Watch & Radios
Ext.A2 – User's Guide given by Opposite party
Ext.A3 –Visiting card of Opposite party
Cost Allowed
Rs.500/- allowed as cost of proceedings
