Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had purchased Nokia mobile phone E-63 on 14th January, 2011 with extended warranty till 14th January, 2013 from the opponent/shop. Copy of the bill is produced on record by the complainant. After purchase of mobile, there were problems in the instrument. Therefore, the complainant issued letter to the opponent dated 12th December, 2012 disclosing the problems i.e.,
i) The mobile phone stopped charging
ii) The scroll key light is not working from last one and half years
iii) The key light is not working from last one and half years
iv) The “Z” key is chipped.
2) The complainant handed over the instrument to the opponent and the opponent issued receipt dated 13th December, 2012. The instrument was not repaired. Therefore, the complainant issued notice dated 19th January, 2013 requesting to repair the instrument and remove the problems. The complainant received message from the opponent at the end of March-2013. The complainant went to the opponent/shop. The opponent gave mobile instrument to the complainant without battery. The opponent promised to give battery on next day. The opponent wrote remark on the copy of receipt i.e. “W/O battery, battery will be delivered at cust. (Customers) Place”. In spite of promise to give battery on next day, the opponent failed to give the battery. Therefore, the complainant could not use the mobile. The complainant issued notice dated 6th April, 2013. In spite of service of notice, the opponent failed to repair the mobile. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for replacement of his mobile/return of the purchase price with interest at the rate of 24%. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing inconvenience, Rs.10,000/- for mental torture and legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-.
3) The opponent was duly served but remained absent. Therefore, the complaint was proceeded ex-parte. The complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence and copies of the bills and notices.
4) According to the complainant, he has purchased the mobile instrument from the opponent with extended warranty upto 14th January, 2013. He had produced copy of bill dated 14th January, 2011 showing the payment of Rs.8,399/-. He has also produced copy of extended warranty. The complainant issued letter dated 12th December, 2012 showing the problems in the instrument. The same is acknowledged by the opponent. The complainant has produced acknowledgement dated 13th December, 2012 showing that instrument was handed over to the opponent for repair. It shows that opponent received the instrument for repair. The complainant issued notice dated 19th January, 2013 requesting to repair the instrument. Copy of it is produced on record. Again, the complainant issued notice dated 6th April, 2013. Copy of which is also produced on record. All these averments are not challenged by the opponent. The bills and the notices are sufficient to prove that instrument was purchased from the opponent with extended warranty upto 14th January, 2013. Problems were disclosed to the opponent during warranty period. In spite of several requests, the opponent failed to repair the mobile. The opponent failed to reply the notices issued by the complainant also. In spite of service of complaint, the opponent remained absent before the Forum. The opponent did not bother to file reply to the complaint. The allegations made by the complainant are remained unchallenged.
5) There is sufficient documentary evidence on record to corroborate the allegations made by the complainant. The mobile was purchased with extended warranty. The opponent has received the charges towards warranty. Therefore, the opponent is liable to repair/replace the instrument. The mobile was purchased in the year-2011. Therefore, we think it just to return the purchase amount instead of replace the instrument. As per the bill, instrument was purchased for Rs.8,399/-. The opponent is liable to return it to the complainant. The opponent received the instrument for repair. The complainant could not use his mobile for long time. In spite of service of notices, the opponent did not bother to reply it thereby the complainant suffered from inconvenience and mental agony. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation. We think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will suffice the purpose.
6) Thus, the complainant is entitled for return of purchase amount of mobile Rs.8,399/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. He is also entitled for legal expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint is allowed.
2) The opponent is directed to return the purchase amount of mobile Rs.8,399/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 3rd May, 2013 till the amount is paid.
3) The opponent is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
4) The order under clause No.2 & 3 shall be complied within a period of one month from today.
5) Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced
Dated 24th December, 2013
