D.o.F:28/09/2013

D.o.O:10/3/2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.222/13

                  Dated this, the 10^th     day of March 2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI             : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G               : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

Jony.K.M, s/o Thomas,

Elavungal House, Kooramkunnu,                                              : Complainant

Vellarikundu Po, Parappa Via.

(in person)

1.Proprietor/Manager,

Vimala Mobile World, Mannur shopping Complex,

Vellarikundu Po, Parappa.

2.Manager, Nokia Care , Profit Mobile Phone,                      : Opposite parties

Land Mark Centre,  New Busstand,Kasaragod

(in person)

                                                                   ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI     : PRESIDENT

        The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone from Ist opposite party on 4/4/2013 for an amount of Rs.4400/- and after 3  months of its purchase, the mobile phone was not working and the complainant informed the defect to the Ist opposite party and the Ist opposite party told him to recharge the mobile  set and at that time the complainant came to know that it is not charging and then again the complaint  approached  Ist opposite party and given the mobile phone for repair and the  Ist opposite party told him that there is a leakage problem of the battery and it is send for repair to Kasaragod and it will take one week time and then the complainant  gone to the Ist opposite party after one week but it was not repaired and thereafter several occasions the complainant approached the Ist opposite party but the mobile phone was not repaired and subsequently the complainant came to know that the battery in the mobile phone is an old one and that is why it was not working and the complainant asked about the installation of old battery instead of new one to the opposite party instead of changing the battery the opposite party insulted the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs.

2.   On receipt of notice from this Forum both parties entered in  appearance and filed their version.  The opposite parties in their version admits the purchase of mobile phone by the complainant and  the opposite parties denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant and submitted that the is having defect is found during warranty period  then it was send to Kasaragod for repair and till then the opposite parties had given another mobile set  for his use and the defect is only to the battery and due to the shortage  in the stock of battery some delay occurred in returning  the mobile set to the complainant and there is no merit in the complaint hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 marked.  2^nd opposite party  cross examined the complainant .  Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence.  Heard  both sides  and document perused.

    It is an admitted case of delay in repairing the mobile set.  Admittedly there is no other defect in the phone.  At the instance of 2^nd opposite party , Ist opposite party had given another handset for daily use till the repair of the mobile phone.  But according  to complainant that phone was also not working.  Anyway opposite parties made an attempt to help the complainant.  Now the opposite party is ready with the new battery.  Considering all the facts and circumstances of the  case we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief claimed.

   Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the 2^nd opposite party to replace the old battery of the mobile  with a new battery and further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and sufferings and Rs.1500/- towards cost  of the proceedings.  Time for compliance  is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Ext.A1-Sale Bill

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

eva