PER SHRI.
1)
2) 9 Thereafter, on 02/07/2009 he dropped the mobile handset at service centre of Opposite Party No.1 for repairs.
3) According to the Complainant, in spite of providing all the details asked by Opposite Parties the Opposite Parties did not take any steps to remove the defects found in the said mobile.
4) Then the Opposite Party No.3 as per their e-mail dtd.10/08/09 informed the Complainant that they are taking necessary action to solve the issue of the said mobile.
5) written statement. is authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2 and who had taken every step to satisfy the grievance of the Complainant whenever the Complainant approached for services of mobile. It is contended that the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice u/s. 2(1)(g) and (r) hence, this complaint deserves to be dismissed as such.
6)
7) written statement. It is contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint filed by the Complainant.
8)
9)
2) NCDRC
3) Panasonic India Ltd. V/s. M.M. Sharma & Ors.
IV 2006 CPJ 27, (Delhi State Commission).
and submitted that considering the observations in above cases the claim made by the Complainant may be allowed.
10)
written statementwritten statement
written statement
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.132/2010 is partly allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
ii. Theis directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,800/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Only) i.e. cost of the mobile handset with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 02/04/09 till its realization to the Complainant.
iii. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) and the Opposite Party No.1 & 3 each are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) as compensation to the Complainant for hardship
iv. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply the order within one month after receipt of this order.
v. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.