DATE OF FILING :18.03.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 70/2011
Between
Complainant : Thomas S/o Varghese,
Urukuzhiyil House,
Mankuva P.O,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.J.Thomas)
And
Opposite Party : The Proprietor,
Techno Cell Park,
The Complete Mobile Shop,
Near Photoland,
Murickassery P.O,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant in this case is an autorikshaw driver who purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party's shop in August 2010 by paying an amount of Rs.2,450/-. The opposite party is the servicing centre of mobile phones also. After a short period the set became defective. The complainant approached to the opposite party and gave it to there for servicing. The opposite party agreed to repair the set and demanded Rs.150/- for servicing. He paid Rs.150/- for which he obtained a voucher from the opposite party. After a week time he had enquired about the set, but the opposite party cannot answer in a positive manner. The complainant in his petition stated that the opposite party said that it was lost, and the set could not repaired and returned to the complainant. Anyway the repeated request of the complainant was neglected by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complainant filed this petition before the Forum.
2. The opposite party is exparte.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant.
5. The POINT :- The complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the voucher given by the opposite party at the time of servicing the mobile set. The petitioner stated that, at the time of purchase, the opposite party did not give the bill and warranty to the set. As an ordinary man he has not compelled for them. In the complaint, the petitioner narrated that the price of the mobile set is Rs.2,450/-. The fact is not disputed by the opposite party. Inspite of notice from the Forum, the opposite party is absent in this case. As an ordinary man the complainant purchased the mobile set for his private use, but he cannot use the same properly. The service centre of the mobile set did not engage their work with responsibility. Ext.P1 document shows the petitioner's transaction with the opposite party. If the set is defective it is the duty of the opposite party to give a new set to the complainant but here the opposite party did not take any necessary steps to satisfy the complainant. We find gross service deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So the petition allowed.
In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to give back the properly repaired mobile set to the complainant, or give a same brand new mobile set to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2011
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - Thomas
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Voucher for Rs.150/- as repairing charges issued by the opposite party
On the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
