COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 27th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.279/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.M.S.Jagadish Babu,Aged about 49 years,S/o Late M.Subbiah Setty,R/at No.637, 46th ‘A’ Cross,3rd Block, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 10.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Nokia Care,Service Center,No.319, 59th Cross,3rd Block, Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 10.<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 return the cell phone and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- 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 one Nokia Cell Phone-2310 model on 17.07.2007 for a valid consideration, which had warranty of one year. But to his utter shock and surprise within four months the said cell phone started giving trouble. Then he approached the OP for the repairs of the same and handed over the set to the Nokia care center. Though he was asked to come every now and then OP failed to repair the same and also failed to return the set to him in spite of his repeated requests and demands. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the notice. Hence service is held sufficient. 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 contention of the complainant that he purchased one Nokia Cell Phone model-2310 for a valid consideration on 17.07.2007, which had warranty of one year but within a span of four months he experienced some defect in the said set. Complainant has produced the tax invoice for having purchased the same. Then he immediately approached the OP and gave said hand set to OP Nokia Care Center for repairs on the complaint of Switch off, display flickering, keypad not working. OP received the said set for repairs. Service job sheet is produced. Though complainant handed over the said set on 18.12.2007 OP neither repaired the said set nor returned it to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. OP neither detected the defect and cured the same nor returned the said hand set to the complainant in spite of his repeated requests and demands. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss that too for no fault of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 6. The non appearance of the OP itself leads us to draw an inference that OP admits allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under such circumstances complainant deserves certain relief. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 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 return the cell phone given by the complainant for repairs within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. In default to return the same as ordered OP is directed to refund the cost of the cell phone Rs.2,350/- along with litigation cost within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.<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 27th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />