Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by  complainant  for enhancement of compensation     is directed against the  order dated 20.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh  whereby   his   complaint bearing  No.810 of 2009  was allowed in the following terms;

“Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to refund the price amount of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of  Rs.550/-.  We order accordingly.  The OPs are directed to make the entire payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 5.6.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant. ”

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

              The  complainant on 08.03.08  had purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile hand set model W580i EMI no.352430022506862 for Rs.10,000/- from  OP NO.2 retail dealer of OP NO.1 . On 09.03.08, complainant  noticed some defect in the answer key of the said set,so, he approached the customer care centre    and handed over the mobile hand set against complaint no. SES08CHD13640 dated 13.03.08. The said mobile set was replaced with a new one on 31.03.08. After few months, the replaced new hand set also developed the same defect as was with earlier one. The complainant again visited B.M. Services customer care centre-OP-3 and deposited the defective mobile hand set with them for repair. After repeated requests, on 05.01.09 the handset was handed over to him after repair, in which the keypad and some other parts were replaced. However,  after some days the hand set again developed defect with its speaker and Bluetooth. On 2.02.09, the complainant   deposited the defective mobile set with Salora International Ltd., Chandigarh -OP-4 for its repair, which was returned to him on 27.02.09 after repairs. The defect again developed in the repaired hand set and it was to be   deposited  with   OP-4 on 10.03.09. After that the complainant rang up OP-4 many times to know about the status of  the said hand set but  it  never gave any convincing reply to him. The complainant  also served a legal notice upon  OP No. 1, 2 and 3 but   he did not receive any reply regarding the repair of his mobile hand set.   As the business of the complainant suffered a lot due to the defective mobile hand set, he purchased a new mobile phone for Rs.6,700/-. Hence,  alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

 4.            Notice of the complaint was served upon  OPs but none appeared on their behalf before the District Forum and suffered ex parte proceedings. 

 5.        The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the complainant    allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment.  Still dissatisfied  , complainant      has come up in   this appeal. 

6.            We have heard learned counsel for the  appellant  and gone through the file carefully.  The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant is that the relief granted by the District Forum is not sufficient in view of harassment suffered by the complainant due to adamant attitude and behaviour of OPs.  He contended that  the business of complainant got affected without his mobile handset and he had to purchase another handset worth Rs.6700/-  and as such he is required to be compensated to the  tune of Rs.50,000/- besides costs of Rs.20,000/-   

7.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the sole point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as  the complaint of the complainant before the District Forum was regarding the  mobile set   which developed defects  and could not be repaired by OPs, so they were ordered to refund its price of Rs.10,000/- besides costs of Rs.550/-. The enhancement  of relief  sought on account of loss in business  without any basis/evidence  is not called for.   

8.         Thus, taking into consideration all the given facts and circumstances of the case  , we are of the considered opinion  that   the amount ordered to be refunded   and costs  awarded  to the complainant  in this case are quite reasonable and justified, so,  no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 20.1.2010.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.