Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/09/90

Babu.K.V. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Owner - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2009

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
OLD S.P. OFFICE, PULIKUNNU
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/90

Babu.K.V.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Owner
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Babu.K.V.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Owner

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

                                                            Date of Filing                      : 02-04-2009

                                                            Date of Order            : 08-06-2009

 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C.No.90/09

                                    Dated this, the 8th day of June 2009.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                          : MEMBER

 

Babu.K.V,

Paini Veedu, Veenachery, Vellikkoth,        } Complainant             

Ajanur.Po, Kasaragod.Dt. 671531.

 

Owner,

Mobile Park, Dain’s Arcade,                         } Opposite party.

Opp: Bus Stand, Kanhangad.

 

                                                               O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

 

            The grievance of the complainant  Babu K.V a service personnel of Indian Army, is that he purchased a Nokia 5310 Mobile phone from opposite party for Rs.8500/-.  It showed signs of troubles like over heating of battery on the first day of purchase itself and within 6 days the mobile set became useless.  On 24-03-09 the complainant entrusted it for service to opposite party.  On 31-03-09 opposite party returned the mobile phone with a report that the handset is fluid logged.  When the complainant enquired about this complaint he came to know that only in the event of opening the mobile phone there is chance for fluid logging and he has never committed the said mistake.  The said defect was an inherent one.  The leave he availed became vain since he constrained to visit the shop of opposite party frequently to enquire about the mobile phone.  Therefore the complainant claiming the replacement of the mobile phone with a defect free mobile phone and a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards his loss, hardships and mental agony suffered.

2.            Opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice issued through registered post.  Hence opposite party was set exparte.  On behalf of the complainant his authorized agent, his brother-in-law Shyam Babu adduced evidence as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked.  He was heard and documents perused carefully.

3.         Ext.A1 is the sales bill dated 13-03-2009.  Ext.A2 in the service job sheet dated 24-3-09. Ext.A3 is the report rejecting the warranty service stating the reason of fluid logging.

4.         PW1 deposed that the mobile phone was defective on the first day of the purchase itself and its battery became weak within 6 days.  It had the complaint of excess heating on the date of purchase itself It’s battery lost its recharging power within 6 days.  He further deposed that the mobile phone was never opened by any one as it was having the warranty.

5.         The fact that the mobile phone become defective and the customer compelled to entrust the same for repair on the 8th day of purchase itself proves that the mobile phone was having manufacturing defect.  A reasonable prudent man will never  attempt to open a new mobile phone worth Rs.8500/- if  defects were noted especially when it is having a warranty of service.   Therefore it is clear that the mobile phone sold to the complainant was having inherent manufacturing defects and therefore the opposite party committed unfair trade practice by selling a defective mobile phone to the complainant.  Of course a customer will be put to severe mental agony and suffering when a brand a new product shows the signs of defect on the first day of purchase itself.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to return Rs.8500/- that he collected from the complainant towards the price of the mobile phone with a compensation of Rs.2500/- towards the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant with a cost of Rs.1500/-.  On receipt of the said amount the complainant shall return the defective mobile phone to the opposite party and obtain the receipt   Had the opposite party got a grievance that it is the manufacturer who has to pay the amount, then opposite party can recover the said amount paid to the complainant from the manufacturer of the mobile phone through appropriate legal proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order

 

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. 13-03-09. Cash bill issued by OP.

A2. Service job sheet

A3.Report rejecting warranty service

PW1. Shyambabu

 

                                                                                                            

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                               

 

 

 




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi