DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member C.C.No.76/2008 M.Sankaranarayanan, Jith Nivas, Kunnathagath House, Shoranur(P.O), Shoranur, Palakkad. - Complainant Vs Rajesh, Proprietor, M/s.Nokia Part Mobile Shoppe, Santhosh Arcade, Opp. Canara Bank, Shoranur, Palakkad. - Opposite party O R D E R By Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 25.06.2007, the complainant purchased a mobile phone of 'Sony Ericsson' IMEI No.354692019097886 model Sony K310i for an amount of Rs.4,200/-. At the time of purchasing the opposite party believed the complainant that he is the authorised dealer of Sony Ericsson and issued a warranty certificate. It is stated in the warranty certificate that there is a warranty of one year. After the normal use of the mobile phone for about three months it began to show some defects. There is sudden display off and consequent non functioning. Immediately the complainant contacted through the service help numbers provided in the operation manual and they advised the complainant to produce the set to the opposite party for service. The opposite party issued a service receipt No.154 for the same. After a week the phone was returned and for one week it functioned without much error but again shown the same defect. Again the set was handed over to opposite party but there was no proper repair for the same and defect is still not cured. For about six months the complainant repeated the same process. But there is no proper service as warrantied. On 25.05.2008 when this complainant approached the opposite party to get it repaired they advised the complainant to produce the phone before the service centre at Ernakulam. When this complainant contacted the service centre by phone, they directed him to produce it at the opposite party. But there is no proper service from the opposite party. When the complainant demanded the address of the service centre the opposite party is reluctant to provide it. The complainant submits that opposite party has committed deficiency of service as well as sold a defective good to the complainant. Sudden non functioning of the mobile phone caused much hardship and loss to the complainant as he is a railway employee. Hence he has filed this complaint before this forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to make arrangament for the mobile phone properly repaired or replace the set and to pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and cost of the case. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Opposite party failed to appear before the forum inspite of accepting the notice. Hence he was called and set ex-parte. Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. Matter was heard. It is evident from Ext.A1, that the complainant has purchased Sony Ericsson mobile phone from the opposite party shop on 25.06.2007. The grievance of the complainant is that soon after the purchase it began to show some defects and there is sudden display off and consequent non functioning. Opposite party returned the same after repairing. But after one week it showed the same defects. In the Ext.A2 receipt, which is issued by the opposite party, it is clearly mentioned that the complaint is with respect to the display and it is within the warranty period. Warranty card is marked as Ext.A3. Further no steps were taken by the opposite party to rectify the defect. Opposite party not even cared to appear before the forum even after the receipt of the notice. There is no contra evidence to that of the evidence adduced by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, we hold the view that, the act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service. In the result, complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.4,200/- (Rupees Four thousand and two hundred only) being the price of the mobile phone and an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation. Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of November, 2008 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K Member Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 Bill No.544 dtd.25.06.2007 for Rs.4,200/- Ext.A2 Receipt No.154 Ext.A3 Warranty card Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Nil Costs (allowed) Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost of the case
