BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                                       : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                                           : MEMBER

C.C. No. 133/2020 Filed on 19/06/2020

ORDER DATED: 28/12/2022

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and alleges that he had purchased a Nokia TA 1161,32 GB Black Mobile for an amount of Rs.8,999/-.  It become non-functioning from the date of usage itself.  The complainant contacted the service centre but the problem of mobile phone was not rectified by the service centre.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 caused much mental agony and monetory loss to the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2  amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

Even though the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties received the notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not appear before this Commission, hence they were set ex parte. 

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):  The complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced 3 documents which were marked as P1 to P3.  It is evident from Ext.P1 that the complainant has purchased Nokia TA 1161, 32 GB Black Mobile for Rs.8,999/- and also it can be seen from the Ext.P3 that complainant has given his mobile phone for repair.  So it is clear that the complainant’s mobile phone was having some problems which was not rectified by the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 did not turn up, hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound to service the mobile phone.  But they haven’t done that.  From the documents produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally  directed to give a new mobile phone to the complainant which  meets the same specifications of Nokia TA 1161, 32 GB Black  or else refund Rs.8,999/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) and can take back the mobile form the complainant and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and              Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28^th  day of December, 2022.    

Sd/-

                                                P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR             : MEMBER   

 Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                           : MEMBER   

C.C.No.133/2020

    APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                                                NIL

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                        NIL

                                                                                                       Sd/-

PRESIDENT