BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 240/2012 Filed on 26.07.2012

Dated : 29.09.2012

Complainant:

K.P. Chithrabhanu, Bhavani Nivas, Papermill Road, Aakkulam, Thuruvikal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 031.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties :

1. The Care Manager, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Infocity, Industrial Plot # 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase.1, Dundahera Gurrgaon-122 016.

    

2. M/s Univercell, The Mobile Expert, T.C 25/3665, Kesari Building, GPO, M.G Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.

    

3. M/s Bright Mobile Care, Vijaya Tower, First Floor, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 26.09.2012, the Forum on 29.09.2012 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant in this case is a senior citizen and moreover he is a cancer patient. Complainant has purchased 3 mobile hand sets from the 2^nd opposite party on 04.01.2012 as per bill No. UKL 334113 for an amount of Rs. 14,850/-. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the above said handsets. The handsets have one year warranty and also have insurance. On 11.07.2012 one of the handsets bearing No. 351651054253260 became faulty. The complainant informed this matter to the 2^nd opposite party and then the 2^nd opposite party directed the complainant to approach the 3^rd opposite party, the authorized service centre. The 3^rd opposite party inspected the handset and assured the complainant that they will repair the handset within one month and issued receipt for the acceptance of the handset to the complainant. Then the complainant requested the opposite party till then, given him another handset for his use, as the defect is occurred within warranty period. But the opposite parties have not supplied another phone. Hence one of his relatives purchased a Samsung Chat 222 mobile phone for him for an amount of Rs. 3,150/-. The complainant alleges that till the opposite parties not repaired and returned the phone to the complainant. Complainant states that the phone became damage during the warranty period and hence it is the duty of the opposite parties to repair or replace the phone to the complainant free of cost. Opposite parties never turned up to do so. The act of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

Complainant in this case filed proof affidavit and from his side 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Opposite parties accepted notice of this complaint issued from this Forum, but never turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite parties remained ex-parte.

Points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

    

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant in this case is a senior citizen and moreover he is a cancer patient. He has purchased 3 Nokia mobile handsets from the 2^nd opposite party on 04.01.2012 for an amount of Rs. 14,850/-. Ext. P1 is the tax invoice of the purchase. As per this document the 2^nd opposite party assured one year warranty and insurance, to the handsets. Whileso one of the handsets became damage on 11.07.2012 and the matter was informed immediately to the 2^nd opposite party and as per the direction of the 2^nd opposite party complainant entrusted the handset to the 3^rd opposite party, the authorized service centre on 12.07.2012 for repair. The 3^rd opposite party accepted the handset and issued service job sheet to the complainant. The job sheet has been produced here and marked as Ext. P2. The remarks shown in Ext. P2 document is that 'found not working'. But till the date of filing the complaint, the opposite parties not returned the handset to the complainant. The complainant states that for that reason he had to purchase another phone for his use. Ext. P3 is the cash bill of the new phone. Complainant alleges that the opposite parties assured one year warranty and insurance coverage to the handset. Hence it is the duty of the opposite parties to repair the handset free of cost or replace another handset to him. But the opposite parties never turned up to do so as per their assurance. Hence the act of the opposite parties definitely amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Opposite parties in this case accepted notice of the complaint issued from this Forum, but never turned up to contest the case. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Complainant in this case has succeeded to prove his case beyond doubt. We find the mental and physical agony of the complainant to contest the case before us as a senior citizen and also as a cancer patient. We find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. From the above mentioned discussions, we allow the complaint.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the handsets i.e; Rs. 14,850/- to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Opposite parties have the right to repossess the remaining two handsets from the complainant after the compliance of the order. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise, 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of September 2012.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 240/2012

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of tax invoice of the purchase dated 04.01.2012 issued

by 2^nd opposite party.

P2 - Copy of service job sheet dated 12.07.2012 issued by 3^rd

opposite party.

P3 - Copy of retail invoice dated 14.07.2012

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb