Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/09/49

Chacko.A.P. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor,Noble Mobile sales and servicesMele Bazar,Cherupuzha. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2009

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
OLD S.P. OFFICE, PULIKUNNU
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/49

Chacko.A.P.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Propritor,Noble Mobile sales and servicesMele Bazar,Cherupuzha.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Chacko.A.P.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


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.

D.o.F:11/02/09

D.o.O:6/5/09

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC. 49/09

                     Dated this, the  06th   day of May  2009

 

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

 

Chacko.A.P,

S/o Late A.D.Paile,

Alayil House, Kooramkundu,                        : Complainant

Po.Plachikkara, Parappa.Via.

 

 

Proprietor,

Noble Mobile Sales & Services,                   : Opposite party

Mele Bazar, Cherupuzha.

 

                                                                            ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT:

 

      In short the case of the complainant is that the Nokia 2626 model mobile phone  he purchased for Rs.2300/- from opposite party on 15/7/08 became defective on  18/09/08.  Eventhough he approached opposite party and requested either to repair  the phone or to replace it, opposite party refused for both.  Hence alleging unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party this complaint is filed.

 

2.   Notice to opposite party issued by registered post.  But opposite party remained absent even after receipt of notice. Hence the opposite party was set exparte. 

3.     Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim.  Exts.A1 & A2 marked.  Complainant heard and documents perused.

4.   According to complainant, the mobile phone  purchased on 15/7/08 became defective on 18/9/08 and his request for repair  or replacement and that was not considered by opposite party.   Ext.A2 the operation manual with warranty clause shows that the different parts of the mobile phone has got different warranty periods  ranging from 90 days to one year.  But in the instant case the mobile phone became defective within 63 days.  Hence the complainant is entitled for the benefits of warranty provided to him, that was refused by opposite party.  Definitely there is  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

 

    Therefore, the complaint is  allowed and opposite party is directed to  refund a sum of Rs.2300/-, the purchase price of the mobile phone with a cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant .  On receipt of the said amount the complainant shall return the defective mobile phone to the opposite party.  Time for compliance is  limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

               

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

Ext.A1-15/7/098-cash receipt of Rs.2300/-

Ext.A2 the operation manual with warranty clause

 

  MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

eva

 

 

 

                                                                           

 




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi