Date of Filling     :  30.12.2014.

                                                                                           Date of Disposal :  27.04.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                    TMT. S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                           …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint no.03/2015

(Dated this the Wednesday the 27^th day of April 2016)

Sujatha Rajinikanth,

Plot no.32/B, Kanakambaram Street,

R.R. Nagar,

Kovilpadhagai,

Avadi,

Chennai - 600 062.                                                                    … Complainant.

                                                          / Versus /

1. The Manager,

BHANDARI’S NOKIA CARE,

No.375, T.I. Cycles Road,

Chennai - 600 053.

2. The Manager,

The Mobile Store Limited,

No.308/A, CTH Road,

Ayyappa Arcade,

Chennai - 600 054.

3. The Managing Director,

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.,

SP info city,

Industrial Plot no.243,

Udyog Vihar, Phase I,

Haryana - 122 016.                                          … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 13.04.2016 in the presence of Thiru. S. Kannan, Counsel for the Complainant and the 1 to 3 opposite parties are Set Exparte for non appearance and for non filing of Written Version and having perused the documents and evidences of the Complainant,  this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties  seeking relief  that to direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone with a new one or else to refund the amount  of Rs.20,796/- to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss with cost Rs.1,000/-.

1.      The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-

The complainant had purchased a Nokia Lumina 1320 mobile phone on 25.05.2014 with IMEI no.359179052260501 by making the payment of Rs.20796/- from the,  The Mobile Store, Avadi - 54.  After purchasing the phone, within a week, the phone developed a problem and she found that there was touch and hanging problems in the phone which caused most of the trouble.   In order to get the defect repaired the complainant contacted the nearby “The Mobile Store” guy Mr. Edison, who highly convinced and recommended to buy the said mobile.

2.       On the next day the complainant visited the 1^st opposite party and their executive inspected the phone and repaired the phone.  However, the problem remains since then the complainant had submitted her phone around 3 - 4 times but the problem was never resolved.   After a repeated follow ups: Her phone was replaced and was provided a new phone with IMEI no.359179050769925 but the replaced phone also started giving her same problems.  Though the complainant has been trying to communicate with the opposite parties for sometime now but there has been no response from their side.  As promised by the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled for undisrupted and honest services by them.  The complainant has been facing lot of mental stress, agony and immense loss of time and money due to the deficient service, conduct and practices of the opposite parties.  The complainant even sent a letter dated 22.10.2014 to the opposite parties stating in detail his grievance in the hope of receiving a positive response, but was sadly disappointed.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A3 are marked. 

4.       At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint?

5.       Though the opposite parties remind Ex-parte this Forum wants to dispose this complaint purely on merits.

6.       Point no.1:-

          Regarding this point, on careful perusal of the averments made in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit submitted by the complainant, it  is learnt that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone namely Nokia Lumina 1320 on 25.05.2014 for Rs.20,976/- and to that effect Ex.A1, invoice was issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  It is further stated that immediately after purchase of the said mobile phone, within a week it developed a problem and thereby the complainant was not able to use the said phone and immediately he contacted the 2^nd opposite party and on advice of the 2^nd opposite partys Manager, Mr. Edison who attached with the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant then visited the 1^st opposite party and repaired the mobile phone.  Even thereafter, the said mobile phone was produced for service around 3 to 4 times but the problem was not actually resolved and therefore, the complainant was provided a new mobile phone and the same also giving trouble.

7.       In furtherance, on going through the evidence, it is crystal clear that inspite of the complainant has been trying to communicate with the opposite party for a long time, there was no response from their side and hence the complainant had sent Ex.A2, letter for the opposite parties.  The courier bills for the above said letter are marked as Ex.A3 series.  Even then, the opposite parties have not come forward to rectify the demand of the complainant and thereby the act of the opposite parties caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

8.       From the foregoing facts and circumstances, of the complaint it goes without saying that the complainant has proved the allegations made in the complaint against the opposite parties beyond all doubts.  In such circumstances, there is no contra evidence adduced on the side of the opposite party.  Therefore, the Forum can easily to draw an adverse inference against the opposite parties.  Such a way, this Forum has concluded without any hesitation that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

9.       Point no.2:-

In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, this Forum has decided that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost price of the mobile phone of Rs.20,796/- from the opposite parties and reasonable compensation with cost.

10.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 1 to 3 opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to refund the cost price of Rs.20,796/- of the mobile phone as alleged in the complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1 to 3 opposite parties with cost Rs.1,000/- totally of Rs.23,796/- (Rupees twenty three thousand seven hundred and ninety six only) to the complainant.

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 27^th April 2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT