Date of Filing:17.06.2009<br /> Date of Order:23.07.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF JULY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1381 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Satbir Kumar,<br /> 24/25, Vishveshwaraiah Layout,<br /> II Division, Venkata Maruti Nagar,<br /> Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. One Mobile, 44/3, <br /> Sahakarnagar, Bangalore-92.<br /> <br /> 2. K.K. Enterprises,<br /> Ebrahim Residency, No.98, I Floor, <br /> Residency Road, Bangalore-560025. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking refund of mobile cost or to replacement with a brand new one. The case of the complainant stated by him is as under:-<br /> “On 27th May 2009, I purchased a L9 Motorola Mobile for Rs.6000 from ONE MOBILE shop at 44/3 Sahakar nagar, Bangalore-92.<br /> I had requested for a Nokia mobile, but the salesman, Sunil convinced me to purchase the L9 Motorola instead of Nokia. I had even asked for Sony Ericsson, but he insisted and coaxed me to buy the L9 Motorola, which I eventually did. The handset that I saw on display was metallic, but after he made the bill he showed me a non metallic one. I insisted on a metallic handset, but he said that it was not in stock. So, I was left with no choice, but to buy the non metallic handset.<br /> <br /> That same evening when I put the mobile for charging it didn’t get fully charged, it was just showing 2 bars. On the 29/05/09 again I kept it for charging, and there was some sound that emitted from the mobile and the charging was still not complete. <br /> <br /> On the 30/5/09 I went to the shop in the evening, but, it was closed. So, on the 1st of June 09, I again went and told them my problem. I was told by them that there was some software problem and they would give it for servicing and kept the mobile. They were calling many vendors to sell this mobile in my presence since they quoted them less amount they advice me to get it serviced. On 4th June 09, they called and said that I should go personally to the service center and get the DO from immediately. I left for the service center and met the Manager, Mr. Benjamin. He opened the handset and saw that the motherboard was wobbly and damaged. He showed me another handset of which the motherboard was intact. He gave me a report saying that the handset was found tampered & that some liquid had entered the charging port and components. He then told me to go to the shop and ask for a refund or a replacement. I went back to the shop and told Mr. Naveen, in charge of the shop, what transpired between me and Mr.Benjamin.<br /> <br /> Mr. Naveen kept the mobile and told me that he would revert. Since he did not get back to me the whole day, I went back to the shop and he said he would let me know in the evening. But, next day he called and said nothing can be done to the mobile and that I have to get it repaired at local service shops. Naveen also mentioned that Sunil must have got more incentive for selling this mobile to you. <br /> <br /> I would appreciate your assistance in the above matter. Please do the needful, so that I may get a full refund for the mobile in question or a brand new one.” Hence, the complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. The opposite parties in spite of service of notice have not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, they have been placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. Heard the complainant. Perused the complaint and documents. The complainant has produced invoice of One Mobile. From this invoice, it is clear that on 27/05/2009 the complainant has purchased Motorola L9 mobile for Rs.5,999/-. The complainant has also produced job sheet of Motorola authorised service center mobile phones. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter. Defence version also not sent by post. It appears that opposite parties have no defence to make. The complainant having produced mobile found defective soon after purchase and he had given to the service center and even after that nothing has been done to rectify the defect. It is very shocking for any purchaser of new goods to find a defective item. The complainant might have suffered mentally on account of the defective hand set. It is the duty of the dealer to sell defect free goods to the customers. The customer is bound to replace the mobile set with a brand new one or to refund the amount. The dealer One Mobile will be free to take up the matter with the manufacturer and seek for reimbursement of the amount. The mobile is not working properly. It is within warrantee period. Therefore, the opposite parties are bound to replace it by receiving the defective hand set. The request of the complainant that the opposite parties may be permitted to refund the amount or to replace the same with a new brand set is quite just, fair and reasonable. The request of the complainant deserves to be accepted. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. A consumer is the most important visitor in the premises of service provider. The service provider/dealer should see that the product supplied to any consumer should be free from any defect. The rights of the consumer shall have to be protected. The complainant in this case is definitely entitled for refund amount paid by him or for replacement of the set of same value with a brand new one. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party One Mobile, 44/3, Sahakara nagar, Bangalore is directed to refund Rs.5,999/- to the complainant or to replace the mobile set with a brand new one within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.500/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. <br /> 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as per statutory requirement. <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF JULY-2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr., <br /> <br />