Presented by Miss B. L. Dora, Member:-<br /> This is a case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, where the Complainant has purchased a Nokia Mobile set bearing model No.-35758/00/145633/8 on payment of Rs. 19,500/-(Rupees Nineteen thousand five hundred)only, dated 23 /12/2006 from the Opposite Party No.5(five) , i. e. Shree Sourav Mobiles & Printers.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No. 1(one) is the importer & product controller of Nokia Brand Mobile sets, Opposite Party No. 2(two) deals to look after the Consumer Complaints & to provide satisfactory services for consumers. Opposite Party No.3(three) is the authority to look after the Regional Affairs & problems relating to the product ,Opposite Party No. 4(four) is it's service provider & Opposite Party No.5(five) is a local authorised retail seller of Nokia brand mobiles.<br /> <br /> The said Hand set caused difficulties i. e. unable to hold charge within it .The Complainant has agitated his grievance before the Opposite party No.4(four) who directed the Complainant to deposit of the said mobile set near him & assured to get return after clearing defects in it. The Complainant has deposited the said set before the Opposite Party No.4(four) dated 25/06/2007.The Opposite Party No.4(four) acknowledged the receipt of the mobile set vide his Service Job Sheet bearing No. 331434038/070625/29. At this time the Opposite Party has denied the request of the Complainant to provide him with a stand by set as an alternative arrangement & assured for quick service. <br /> <br /> When the Opposite Party not returned the mobile set after passing of six months,the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.4(four) time & again &lastly sent pleader notice on dated 01/02/2008,demanding a new mobile of worth Rs.19,500/-(Rupees Nineteen thousand five hundred ) only & compensation of Rupees Fifteen thousand only for mental agony but the Opposite Party did not responded the notice also.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prayed for a new mobile set worth Rs. 19,500/-(Rupees nineteen thousand five hundred)only or to refund the amount and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only by the Opposite Parties as compensation to the Complainant for the negligent Act and deficiency in service, cause by them.<br /> In this regard, the Complainant relies on the original documents:-<br /> 1) Bill issued by the Opposite Party No.5(five).<br /> 2) Xerox copy of service Job Sheet issued by Opposite Party No.4(four) Dt. 25/06/2007.<br /> 3) Copy of Pleader notice Dt. 01/02/2008.(three sheets)<br /> 4) Postal receipts showing despatch of the notice. (4 pcs)<br /> 5) A.D. Card of showing receipts of notice . (3 Pcs).<br /> <br /> In response to this, the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) filed their version with affidavit denying all the allegations, alleged against them on questioning the maintainability of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.5(five) filed his version on admitting the selling of the said mobile, having warranty reference No. APAINY078613919. He again admits that the Complainant has deposited the said Hand-set near him and then he had deposited the same in the custody of Opposite Party NO.4(four) and obtaineld the service Job Sheet of the mobile there and supplied it to the Complainant. On receiving of Pleader notice he has made contact to other Opposite Parties over telephone who advised not to worry as the matter is in between the customer and manufacturer. So that he has not replied to the notice and is not deficient in service.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.3(three) and No.4(four) set ex-parte vide order Dt. 23/10/2008 and the case is posted for hearing.<br /> <br /> Heard from the counsel and perused the documents, filed by both the Parties. It is obvious that the Complainant has deposited the mobile set within the warranty period which is also admitted in the affidavits, filed by both the Parties. In view of this, the Complainant is the consumer and has every right to get free and proper service which should not be so late. Now, question arised here if the mobile set was misused by the Complainant, the Opposite Party should return it very soon after verification. But the Opposite Parties kept this in his custody and they remained silent to the pleader notice, amounts to negligence in duty and deficiency in service on their part.<br /> Hence, the Complaint petition is allowed.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to give a new mobile set worth Rs. 19,500/-(Rupees nineteen thousand five hundred)only or to pay the said price thereof to the Complainant with compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only within a period of thirty days from the date of the Order, failing which the total amount awarded shall carry 12% (twelve percent) interest per annum till the date of actual payment.<br /> <br /> The case is disposed of.<br />