DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member CC No.8/2009 Balakrishnan.M.A, S/o.Janaki, Mangalathupadathu House, Kondazhi.P.O. PIN 679 106. - Complainant (Party in person) Vs
Faizal, Proprietor, PHK Electro Lab, Golden Plaza Shopping Complex, Ottapalam. PIN 679 101. - Opposite party (By Adv.A.K.Joseph) O R D E R
By Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
The complaint in short is as follows:
The complainant entrusted his mobile phone Nokia 70 with the opposite party for repairing the network problem on 20.10.08. On 23.10.08 the phone was returned after repair and an amount of Rs.650/- was paid as service charge. Within hours itself the phone showed the same problem as earlier. The phone was again given for repairing to the opposite party on 25.10.08. On 27.10.08 the phone was returned to the complainant without display. The phone was entrusted with opposite party due to network problem. But after repairing the phone showed more problems that there was no display in the phone. The complainant requested to
refund the service charge but the opposite party was not ready to do so. Hence this complaint. Complainant alleges that the act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service on their part. So the complainant approached the forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- including compensation for mental agony.
The opposite party filed version with the following contentions. It is correct to say that the complainant entrusted the mobile phone with opposite party on 20.10.08 and it is returned on 23.10.08, but it is not correct to say that the problem was network complaint. In the job card No.8260 it is clearly written that the phone having network complaint and display problem. The opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant and hence complainant is not a consumer. It is not correct to say that a notice was issued to the opposite party and it is returned with the endorsement 'out of India'. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. Exts.A4 to A6 were marked with objection. Mobile phone is marked as MO1. No documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite party.
Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are;
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 and 2: The case of the complainant is that he entrusted his mobile phone Model No.N70 with the opposite party to repair its network problem. Two days later it was given back and an amount of Rs.650/- was paid an service charge. But soon after the repair the phone showed the same defect. For repairing again the mobile phone was entrusted with opposite party and it was returned to the complainant without curing the problem. Besides network problem its display has also gone. So the complainant prays an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by him.
We perused the relevant documents on record. It is evident from the Ext.A1 and A2 document that the complainant paid Rs.650/- as service charge to the opposite party. Opposite party says that at the time of entrusting the phone the nature of the complaint written in the job card No.8260 is that of network complaint and display problem. But in the job card No.8260 and 8325 marked as Ext.A1 and A2 the nature of complaint is written as network complaint only. Another contention of the opposite party is that the disputed phone is made by Finland. Mobile phone marked as MO1 no where shows that it is made in Finland.
From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that charging repair charges without actually repairing the set amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2010
Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Job Card No.8260 dtd.20.10.08 Ext.A2 - Job Card No.8325 dtd.25.10.08 Ext.A3 – Unserved letter Ext.A4 – Estimate Ext.A5 – User's manual Ext.A6 – Statement of Mobile Republic, Thrissur
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Nil MO1 – Mobile phone Cost (allowed) Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) | 
