Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/12/270

Manikandan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nokio Care Land Mark Centre - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2013

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/12/270
 
1. Manikandan
Kuttikole House, Po. Kuttikole, Chengala via, Kasaragod.
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Nokio Care Land Mark Centre
New Bus Stand, Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
2. Mobile Zone Nokio Priority Dealer, New Bus Stand
Kasaragod
Kasaragod
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. K.T.Sidhiq PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

            SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            The grievance of the complainant Sri.Manikantan in brief is as follows:

             On 21-10-2011 he purchased a Nokia C101 Mobile Phone and it became non functioning during it’s warranty period.  He entrusted the mobile phone with opposite party No.1 for repair. But  2 days later  when he approached them to get it back after repair, it was told that  water is logged inside the mobile phone  and hence it is not repairable as per the warranty cover.  According to the complainant there  was no occasion the mobile phone come in contact with the water. The 1st opposite party is evading his liability to repair the mobile  phone stating  lame excuse that the mobile phone is water logged. As a result  complainant suffered much mental agony and hardships. Hence the complaint.

2.         On receipt of notice by both opposite parties, a representative of opposite parties appeared before the Forum and prayed time for version.  The representative also submitted that they will prove their contention by taking steps to send the mobile phone for expert examination. Subsequently on the next  posting day of the case  the opposite parties neither appeared nor filed version.  Hence both opposite parties had to be set exparte.

3.         Complainant examined as PW1.  Ext.A1, the bill dated 21-10-2011 evidencing the purchase of Nokia C101 mobile phone from opposite party No.2 is marked.  Nokia C101 mobile phone produced and  marked as MO-1.Complainant deposed in tune with his complaint.

4.         Non-repairing  the mobile phone  within it’s warranty period is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

            The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the repairing costs that may incur to the complainant for repairing the mobile phone together with a cost of Rs.1,000/-.  Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Bill dt. 21-1-2011

MO-1. Mobile phone.

PW1. Manikandan.

 

Sd/-                                                                                                                            Sd/-

 

MEMBER                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                    Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. K.T.Sidhiq]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER

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.