Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/08/75

M N SAJEESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NOKIA INDIA P LTD - Opp.Party(s)

12 Nov 2008

ORDER


KOZHIKODE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CIVIL STATION
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/75

M N SAJEESH KUMAR
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

NOKIA INDIA P LTD
SPECTRUM SALES AND MARKETING
THE CARE MANAGER
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. G YADUNADHAN2. JAYASREE KALLAT3. K.V.SREENIVASAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By G. Yadunadhan, President: The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Nokia N 70 Music Edition Mobile phone from opposite party No.3 for an amount of Rs.12100/-. Opposite party No.3 issued a cash bill No.2542 dated 22.9.2007 to the complainant. According to the complainant, he noticed defects in the said mobile phone on the very next day of the purchase. Due to the locking of earphone, the complainant could not use the instrument and entrusted the same to opposite party No.3 for effecting necessary repairs. Opposite party No.3 assured to the complainant that they will take up the matter with the company and will replace the mobile set at the earliest. But opposite party did not comply the assurance even now. Hence the complaint is for recovery of Rs.12100/- and a compensation of Rs.1500/- from the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their version denying all the allegations put up by the complainant. Opposite party No.3 appeared but not filed their version. So many chances were given to opposite party No.3 to file the version. But they did not file the version so far. On 22.10.2008 all the opposite parties were called absent and set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. From the affidavit and Ext. A1 to A3, complainant’s case is proved. In the result petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.12100/- towards the cost of the mobile phone and a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Amount shall pay within one month from the date of this order. No cost is allowed. Pronounced in open Court this the 12th day of November 2008. Sd/-President Sd/-Member APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1 Photocopy of Retail Invoice No.2543 dated 22.9.07 for Rs.12100/-. A2 Photocopy of Service Job Sheet dated 18.10.2007. A3 Photocopy of lawyer notice dated 28.11.2007. Documents exhibited for the Opposite parties: Nil. Witness examined for the complainant: PW1 M .S. Satheeshkumar, S/o. M.N. Sadananthan – Complainant. Witness examined for the Opposite parties: None. -/True copy/- Sd/-President (Forwarded/By Order) Senior Superintendent.




......................G YADUNADHAN
......................JAYASREE KALLAT
......................K.V.SREENIVASAN