1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI.K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Krishnakumar, the complainant has filed the complaint before this forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The contention of the complainant is that on 18-07-2006, the complainant had entrusted his phone bearing No. GSM/CDMA Model: N 7710-IMEI/BSN 3550 200009-87759-10, with the opposite party to repair the defect of sudden switch off at the time of use. Accordingly the opposite party had issued the receipt on that date. On 24-07-2006, when contacted the opposite party, they had collected a sum of Rs. 500/- from the complainant towards service charge. Since it become defective, again the complainant had entrusted the set with the opposite party for repair. But the opposite has refused to repair the set after accepting the said amount. So the complainant has returned without accepting the set. Since the opposite party is the authorized agent of the Nokia Mobile Company for the repair of the set. Complainant has not obtained a positive step from the side of the opposite party. Hence the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance before the forum and filed version. In the version, it is stated that the opposite has entrusted the set with the opposite party on 18-07-2006 for repair. The opposite party had returned the set after curing the defects through their Ernakulam main service centre after charging a sum of Rs. 500/-. But the complainant had again contacted the opposite party, charging the allegation of defects in the set and requested to rectify the same. But, through their Service Centre of Ernakulam it was learnt that the defects of the set cannot be rectify and it was communicated to the complainant and that the defected was occured due to the wrong use of the set by the complainant. It is further stated that the set is now in the custody of the opposite party and requested the Forum to give a direction to the Complainant to collect the set from the opposite party and denied the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation and costs? 4. Issues 1 and 2: On the side of the Complainant, 2 documents were produced, marked as Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the receipt dated 18-07-2006 showing the details of the complaint and Mobile No. and defects to be rectified, which is issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the service job sheet dated 24-07-06, showing the details of the set and the details of amount charged. On a perusal of the said documents and the deposition, it can be say that the opposite party is bound to rectify the defects of the set since they have collected the service charge. In this case, the opposite party has not fully rectified the defects and the set is still in the custody of the opposite party. So we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by way of denial of the release of the above set to the complainant after rectifying the defects. First issue is found in favour of the complainant. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite party. Second issue is also found in favour of the complainant. So complaint is to be allowed. In the result, we hereby directing the opposite party to give back the set in a fully working condition to the complainant with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and a costs of Rs. 500/-. We further direct the opposite party to pay the above said amounts to the complainant together with the set within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of June, 2008. Sd/- SRI.K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT.SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant: Ext. A1 - Receipt dated 18-07-2006 Ext. A2 - Receipt dated 24-07-2006 Evidence of the Opposite Party: NIL // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Party/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:
