<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. S.S.NAGARALE PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.953/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.M.Prabu,C/o M.Selvaraj (Kavitha Fancy Store)101, 15th Main, J.C Nagar,Kurubarahalli,Bangalore – 560086.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Pranav Infocom,No.94, 7th Main,4th Block, Jayanagar,Bangalore – 560011.2. FFONE ZZONE#676/2, Pankaj Plaza,2nd Stage,Near Navarang Theatre,Rajajinagar,Bangalore – 560010.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> On 09.01.2008 complainant purchased the mobile hand set FLY SL600 Black from the OP.2 for a sum of Rs.7,000/-. The copy of the invoice is produced. At the time of purchase OP has given one year warranty. The hand set only for 3 months after that complainant noticed keypad defect, speaker problem, display problem, sudden shut down of the mobile, reception problem, memory card unit problem etc. Hence he complained the same to OP vide its complaint No.237. OP.2 collected the handset and informed the complainant to collect the same after a week. Complainant visited number of times and also over telephone but OP.2 went on postponing on one or the other reasons and even after lapse of more than two months OP.2 failed to rectify the defects. Complainant send the e-mail on 21.01.2009. OP.2 sent reply asking the complainant to collect the handset which is kept ready. Complainant took the handset noticed that defects are not rectified. Again next week complainant went OP.2 and lodge complaint to OP for same defect but OP failed to rectify the defect. On 07.02.2008 for same defects have occur, complainant returned the set to OP.2. Even after lapse of more than one month OP.2 failed to correct the defects or to replace the handset. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed its version mainly contending that earlier in November 2008 complainant has given a mobile for service. Again in February 2009 same mobile has given for service which was also repaired and returned the complainant on 18.02.2009. Again on 04.03.2009 complainant gave the set for repairs when OP insisted for purchase bill complainant failed to produce the same. After lapse of one year of warranty OP tried its level best to repair it. OP.1 is ready for replacement as per the instructions of its manufacturer but complainant is not ready for settlement. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased the mobile hand set FLY SL600 black from OP.2 for a sum of Rs.7,000/-. It is also not at dispute that during the warranty period complainant noticed the defects in display, reception, memory card etc. Hence he complained the same to OP vide complaint No.237. Even after lapse of two months OP failed to rectify the defects.<br /> <br /> 7. Further OP.1 has admitted in its affidavit that as per the instructions of the manufacturer he is ready to replace the handset. During the course of arguments however complainant insisted for refund of money only and he is not interested in the handset. Under the circumstances OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant. In the result we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.7,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of June 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />