By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complainant had received a Nokia 6233 Mobile phone as a gift from a family friend. The phone was entrusted with the opposite party on 22-12-08 for repair. Opposite party had agreed to return back the Mobile phone after repairing within one week. When the complainant approached the opposite party to get the mobile phone opposite party requested further time for repair. Since then the complainant contacted the opposite party several times but opposite party did not return back the mobile phone. Complainant has filed this petition alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party for not returning back the mobile phone, which was entrusted with the opposite party for repair. Petition is filed either to return back the mobile phone or to pay the amount of the phone along with compensation for mental agony the complainant had to go through. Opposite party filed a version denying all the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The opposite party admits the fact that complainant had entrusted her mobile on 22-12-08 with the opposite party. Opposite party had given a slip showing the mobile phone No. and battery No. As the opposite party found that the phone was irrepairable, opposite party had returned back the mobile phone to the complainant after two days. Opposite party submits that as they have returned back the mobile phone to the complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Complainant has filed a false case. Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs to opposite party. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? Opposite party had appeared before the Forum and had agreed to settle the matter. The matter was referred to adalath. Matter was not settled. After giving several chances for the opposite party to settle the matter. On 29-1-2010 opposite party was called absent and set exparte. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 were marked on complainant’s side. The case of the complainant is that she had entrusted the mobile phone with the opposite party to get it repaired. Opposite party had given a slip mentioning the number of the phone and battery which is produced and marked as Ext.A1. Opposite party has not denied Ext.A1 document. Ext.A1 shows that number of the Nokia phone and battery of the complainant is written and the seal of the opposite party also could be seen. The evidence of PW1 is that opposite party has not returned the phone given for repair. Even though the opposite party appeared before the Forum, filed their version but were not present either to cross examine the complainant or to produce any records to prove that the mobile phone has been returned back to the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that opposite party has failed to return back the complainant’s mobile phone after repair. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief. In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to return back the mobile phone of the complainant after making it defect free and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.200/- within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order. Pronounced in the open court this the 16th day of February 2010. Sd/- PRESIDENT Sd/- MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Photocopy of receipt issued by O.P. to the complainant. A2. Photocopy 9of Regd. Notice sent by Consumer Protection Council, Chemancheri Panchayath to the opposite party. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil. Witness examined for the complainant. PW1.Smitha.K. (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. | 
