CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 132/2011
Wednesday , the 28th day of September, 2011
Petitioner : Zeba James,
Polachira House,
Puthuppally,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Sangeetha Mobiles,
Near Thirunakkara Bus Stand
Kottayam
2) 106, Chawda Commercial Centre, Near Mind space, New Lindk Road, Chincholi Bunder, Malad (West),Mumbai – 400064.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Memer.
.
The case of the complainant presented on 27..5..2011 is as follows:
On 21..5..2011 complainant purchased a mobile hand set from the 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2500/- (MAXX 463). On 23..5..2011 it was noticed that the screen of the set was broken. He came to know that the above mentioned model hand set was not so good quality. The complainant had not get any usage from the new mobile set. The 1st opposite party was mis-lead the complainant and hence he forced to purchase this hand set. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get back the amount or replace the defect free hand set. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in-law or on facts. The complainant approached the opposite party for purchasing Dual Sim facility phone with memory
-2-
card and camera. The above said facility phone would cost around Rs. 3,500/-. The complainant submits that his budget is Rs. 2,500/-. Accordingly one hand set was purchased by him with his-own choice. It was false that the complainant approached the opposite party two three days after purchase after the hand set became defective. It was the tatics of the complainant in order to change the purchased hand set with a new model hand set. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as exhibit A1. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that from very next day of purchase itself mobile hand set became defective. According to him the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects or to replace the handset. The first opposite party, dealer, has filed counter affidavit and taken a strong contention that the mobile hand set has no defects at all. According to them the complainant demanded a more facility mobile hand set. The mobile hand set has some defects as alleged by the complainant. But the opposite party has not a case that they have rectify the defects as alleged by the complainant. Hence we have no reasons to dis-believe the sworn proof affidavit of the complainant. So, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows:
We direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile hand set ie. Rs. 2500/- as per Ext. A1. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 500/- as costs of these proceedings. On getting the payment the complainant shall hand over the
-3-
disputed hand set to the opposite parties. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1: The copy of Bill.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
