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. 347/2010 Filed on 29.10.2010

Dated : 31.03.2011

Complainant:

Shaji Kumar, Kumaravilasom, Kannumamoodu, Tamil Nadu-629 170.

(By adv. J.R. Sanudas)

Opposite party :

The Manager, M/s Smart Care, T.C 2/2400 (5), Pulluvila Towers, Opp: Marikar Motors, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 15.03.2011, the Forum on 31.03.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Facts of the case are as follows: Complainant had given his Nokia N 73-1 Model mobile phone to the opposite party for repairing on 21.12.2009. Accordingly the opposite party issued a service job sheet on the very same day after assuring delivery of the repaired mobile phone in the evening. But the opposite party has not delivered the mobile phone on the same day. On 23.12.2009, the complainant approached the opposite party to get back the same after repair. But the opposite party replied that it will take one more week to rectify the defects. The complainant again approached the opposite party's service centre on 31.12.2009. At that time also the opposite party told that the mobile phone had been sent to the manufacturing company for curing all the defects and he can give the same after a fortnight. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party on 14.01.2010, then the opposite party informed the complainant that the phone was found missing somehow or other. The complainant stated that it is the duty of the opposite party either to give the same mobile phone or to return it duly repaired or to simply return the same in its original condition or to issue a substitute one, but all his efforts turned in futile and opposite party's approach towards the complainant creates great mental agony and hardship. Due to the loss of such a mobile phone, the complainant suffered great loss to the tune of Rs. 14,000/- which is the original price of the mobile phone. Complainant submitted that the above said acts of the opposite party are illegal, deficient in service and unfair for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

In this case the opposite party accepted notice from this Forum, but never turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite party set exparte. Complainant has filed affidavit and produced 5 documents to prove his contentions.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged since he has not been cross examined by the opposite party. For more evidence he has produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 to P3 are the copy of lawyer's notice and its postal receipt and acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the service job sheet of the opposite party. Ext. P5 is the price list of Nokia phone. Through these documents we can see that the complainant has entrusted his mobile phone model N 73-1 to the opposite party for repairing on 21.12.2009. But till date the opposite party neither returned the phone to the complainant nor settled the matter. The opposite party told the complainant that the mobile phone was lost from his custody. This act of the opposite party definitely amounts to deficiency in service. It is the duty of the opposite party to give the phone to the complainant or to give its price if it has been lost. The opposite party in this case denied all the request and demands made by the complainant. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Due to the loss of the mobile phone the complainant suffered great loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- as the price of the mobile phone to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 9% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount from the date of order till 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 31^st day of March 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 347/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of postal receipt

P2 - Copy of acknowledgement card

P3 - Copy of lawyer's notice dated 11.09.2010

P4 - Copy of the Service Job Sheet of the opposite party.

P5 - Price list of Nokia phone.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT