KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU          :    PRESIDENT

SHRI.  S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               :     MEMBER

APPELLANT

The Proprietor,

Powerlink,  T.C. 14/1017,

Opposite Trivandrum Club,

                Vazhuthacaud, Trivandrum

                 (Rep. by Adv.  Sri.Nair Ajaykrishnan & Narayan R.)

                                                Vs

RESPONDENT

Shiroz A.R,

S/o Abdul Rasheed,

Yaseen ,

T.C. 41/1731,

Manacaud P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU          :  PRESIDENT

Appellant is the opposite party  in C.C. 162/2008 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The appellant is under orders to return the mobile phone of the complainant in working condition with the assurance that the defects will not be re-occurred within 90 days and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs.

          The case of the complainant is that the mobile phone Nokia N 73 purchased by him from UAE, on 30.05.2007 was entrusted with the opposite party on 10.02.2008.  He was told that it is only a minor defect and that the same can be rectified without breaking the seal of warranty.  On 12.2.2008 the mobile was returned to him,  but before he reached home the defect occurred again.  He again took the equipment to the first opposite party who again assured that it is only a minor defect and a  sum of Rs. 550/- was charged for repair.  It is his allegation that the mobile phone has not been returned and that the opposite party  is demanding an exorbitant amount as service

charge.   Further the complainant could not avail the warranty.  A defect notice was issued on 13.3.2008.  But no reply has been received. 

          The opposite party has filed version mentioning that the mobile phone was entrusted to the opposite party on complaints that the locking mechanization is not working.  The complainant was told that the warranty will not apply to India.  The software had to be upgraded, and the same was done and the bill amount was paid by the complainant.   Again the equipment was brought to the opposite party as it was having similar problems.  On testing the equipment it was found that there was defects in the integrated circuit of the keypad and the same will have to be replaced along with other components and  the same was intimated and the opposite party was asked to carry out the repairs.  The cost of repairs amounted to Rs. 1,450/- and the same was informed to the complainant.  Till date he has not come to collect the same despite of the notice issued dated 28.5.2008.

          Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1 and Exts. P1 to P6.

 On a perusal of the order of the Forum below we find that the complainant has testified in proof of the averments contained in the complaint.  Of course Pw1 was cross examined.  Evidently nothing has been brought out in the cross examination to discredit his evidence.   The opposite party has not mounted the witness box.  The Forum has noted that opposite party ought to have informed the complainant if the defect was a major one.  The opposite party has not done so.  It is in the above circumstances that the Forum has allowed the complaint.  We find that there is no patent legally in the order of the Forum.  Hence there is no scope for admitting the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed in limine.

          The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum. 

                 JUSTICE .K.R.UDAYABHANU          :  PRESIDENT

                        S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR            :   MEMBER

        ST