Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/831

NOKIA CARE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT SUJATA SANJAY KADAW - Opp.Party(s)

V GAIKWAD

24 Aug 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/10/831
(Arisen out of Order Dated 24/05/2010 in Case No. 72/10 of District Satara)
1. NOKIA CARE SATARA TRADE CENTER SHAHU STADIUM NEARS T STAND SATARA SATARAMAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. SMT SUJATA SANJAY KADAWR/O 64 SUVIVIDHA SOCIETY KRISHNANAGAR SATARA SATARA MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase PRESIDENTHon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar Judicial MemberHon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale Member
PRESENT :V GAIKWAD , Advocate for the Appellant 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Per Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:-

This appeal is directed as against the  order passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Satara in consumer complaint no. 72/2010 decided on 24/05/2010.   Present appellant is org.opponent while respondent is org.complainant.  District Consumer Redressal Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay the price of hand-set of Rs.--- and cost of Rs.500/-.  Said order has been challenged by the appellant.  Admittedly, the mobile phone was not working properly during the warranty period.  It was purchased on 02/09/2009 and warranty period was up to 01/09/2010.  When the respondent had been to the service centre of the appellant his technician has carried the out the entry level screening and  according to him the mobile phone was tampered  which means that it had fallen down and it was not necessary to replace the said mobile.  We repeatedly asked Ld.Counsel as to how the technician came to the conclusion that mobile phone has fallen down.  Except noting mentioned in the screening report, nothing has been pointed out by the Ld.Counsel for the appellant.  Apart from that affidavit of the person who carried out screening has also not been filed and therefore, even though there was opportunity to lead evidence, there is no evidence placed on record on behalf of appellant. 

          We do not find any substance in the appeal.  On the contrary the District Consumer Redressal Forum has came to the conclusion that during the warranty period the mobile was not working properly and therefore it was a defective piece and directed to appellant replace it.  No interference is required.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

                                                 :-ORDER-: 

 

1.                 Appeal stand rejected.

2.                 Amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal be sent to the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Satara so as to make payment to the respondent.

3.                 No order as to costs.

4.                 Dictated on dais.

5.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.

 

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 24 August 2010

[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase]PRESIDENT[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar]Judicial Member[Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale]Member