Kerala

Kollam

CC/08/295

Biju.R, Keerthanam, Neethi Nagar, Pattathanam.P.O., Kollam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Mobile Store - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2009

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/295

Biju.R, Keerthanam, Neethi Nagar, Pattathanam.P.O., Kollam
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Proprietor, Mobile Store
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Proprietor, Mobile Store

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.

SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. 

 

            Complaint for realization of Rs.1799/- being the value of the mobile phone, compensation and costs.

 

          The complainant case is that he purchased from the opp.party  a Samsung mobile hand  set for Rs.1799/- .  But the same did not work  2 days after the  purchase of  the set and even though he  complained  to the opp.party to replace the same, they did not  comply with his request and hence this complaint.

 

          Opp.party was duly served but they did not enter appearance or filed any version.   Thereafter the complainant filed affidavit and Ext.P1 to P3 were marked.

 

Points that would arise for consideration are

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party

2.     Reliefs and costs.

 

Points: 

 

 The complainant has stated that he purchased a Mobile hand set from the opp.party on 11.10.2008 for Rs.1799/-  evidenced by Ext. P1 invoice, and Ext.P2  bill.  The hand set did not work  and so he send Ext. P3   letter dated 23.10.2008.  The opp.party did not  refund the amount or give new hand set.   Since the opp.party did not appear the evidence of the complaint  stands un impeached and hence on the basis of Ext. P1 to P3  and the evidence of PW.1  the complaint stands proved

 

In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opp.party to refund Rs.1799/- towards the price of the mobile handset and Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and costs.

 

            Dated this the 30th day of May, 2009-05-30

                                                                       .

I N D E X

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Invoice

P2. – Bill

P3. – letter dated 23.10.2009.