FA.No.286/2010 against CC.No.603/2009 District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad.

Between:

S.Muralai Prasad,

S/o.late Sri S.

R/o.1-9-287, Ramnagar Gundu,

Vidyanagar,

Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

The Authorised Agent,

The Hot Spot Retail Ltd.

D.no.306-563/A

Upper Ground Floor, Himayatnagar,

Hyderabad.

…Respondent/Opp.Party.

For the Appellant                      : S. Murali Prasad

For the Respondent                  : Respondent served.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon

*******

1.         Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad,

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Nokia Cell Phone Model Number 150 on 26.01.2009 for Rs.1750/- from the opposite party and within four months he found that the phone was not working properly.  He complained the same to the opposite party’s service centre.  The service centre after thorough check up informed that a duplicate battery was found in the cell phone and directed him to approach the seller.  The Service Centre also issued a bill for Rs.350/-.  On that he approached the seller, who rejected to change the battery.  The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 24.05.2009 for which he did not receive any reply from the opposite party.  Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to exchange the cell phone, besides costs of Rs.23.         The opposite party though served with notice remained absent. 

4.         The District Forum based on the evidence adduced dismissed the complaint on the ground that he did not file the warranty card to show that there was any obligation on behalf of the opposite party in replacing Nokia cell battery. 

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. 

6.         Heard the complainant, the appellant in person. 

7.         It is the case of the complainant that he purchased Nokia cell phone from the opposite party, evidenced under Ex.A.1 for an amount of Rs.1750/- on 26.1.2009.  Thereafter he approached the authorized service centre of Nokia and paid Rs.350/- towards charges for a new battery, since he was informed that the battery in the cell phone was a duplicate one and not original one.  We observe from the record that an endorsement was made by the opposite party on Ex.A.2 that the battery found in the cell phone was duplicate one.  Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice for which he did not receive any reply from the opposite party.  The complainant has established his case stating that the battery in the cell phone was a duplicate one.  We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party is deficient in service for selling a cell phone with a duplicate battery for which the complainant is entitled for compensation. Despite repeated requests, the opposite the defect nor replaced by new cell phone.  Undoubtedly, the complainant having spent Rs.1750/- he is equally entitled to compensation of Rs.2

8.         In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.1750/- together with compensation of Rs.2

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DTVvr.