The case of the complainant is that he had
purchased a mobile phone “Lumia” of Nokia Company
from OP2 on 10.8.2014. It is alleged by the
complainant that since the day of purchase, the
mobile phone started giving trouble. It used to hang
and the touch screen was not working properly. It is
further alleged by the complainant that the mobile
phone had stopped working suddenly on 28.3.2015 and
complainant went to service center of OP3 i.e. OP1
Page 1 of 2
for rectifying the defect in the mobile. It is also
alleged by the complainant that OP1 had refused to
repair the mobile even after the receiving a sum of
Rs 50/- as service charges. It is further alleged by
the complainant that the mobile was within the
warranty period. Hence, the complaint.
Despite service of notice , the Ops failed to
appear hence they were ordered to be proceeded with
In the evidence, the complainant has filed his
own affidavit along with a photocopy of service
receipt dated 28.3.2015 issued by OP1. He has
corroborated the contents of the complaint in his
affidavit of evidence .
The affidavit filed by the complainant has
remained unrebutted. We, therefore, hold OP3
deficient in rendering service to the complainant and
accordingly direct OP3 as under:
1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 15,000/- as cost of the mobile .
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for pain and agony which also
3. The complainant shall return the handset after receiving payment.
The OP3 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from
the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay
interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the
OP3 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may
approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section
25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per
rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum
on.....................
