IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday the 31^st day of March, 2010

Filed on 17.07.09

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.248/09

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Sri.John, S/o Cleetus,                                 1.         The Manager,

Panackal Purackal,                                     Nokia Priority Dealer (Prime Cell),

Vaadackal,                                                             Melluvelil Buildings,

Alappuzha (w) Village,                                            Kallupalam Junction,

Alappuzha, 688002                                                Alappuzha, 688011

2.                  Nokia India Pvt.Ltd.,

5^th Floor Tower A&B Cyber Green

BLF Cyber City, Sector 25A,

Gargaon – 122002, Haryana.

(By Adv.Hari Ravu)                 

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

Complainant case in a nut shell is as follows. The Complainant purchased a mobile phone handset, (Nokia 2600) on 5th February 2009 from the 1^st opposite party. The cost of the said instrument was Rs.3151/-(Rupees three thousand one hundred fifty one only).  Within a short span of time, the said mobile handset developed some sort of short comings. On 20^th March 2009 the mobile set turned totally inoperative. Pursuant to thereof, the set was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party and required him to replace the mobile set with another. The opposite party, after a short while handed over the mobile set to the complainant. The complainant was assured that the defect of the mobile set was cured for ever. Contrary to the assurance, the set again failed to function properly. The complainant again approached the 1^st opposite party on 10^th May 2009.  The opposite party required the complainant to call on him the next day. The complainant again visited the opposite party, and the 1^st opposite party impressed upon the complainant that its flaw could be rectified only by replacing something in the set, and it would take one week to get the set revamped. The complainant insisted to get the phone replaced. The opposite party apprised the complainant that for replacement of the same, the mobile set had to be sent over to the Delhi Showroom. It required at least nearly two months. On 14^th June 2009, the complainant sent a registered letter to the 2^nd opposite party requiring him to either replace the defective mobile set or to hand him back the cost of the same. There was no any sort of response from the opposite party. The complainant incurred considerable pecuniary loss. That apart the complainant sustained both physical and mental hardship. Got aggrieved by this, the said complaint has been filed before this Forum.

                        1. Sent notice to the opposite parties. They didn't turn up. They were set Exparte.

                        2. The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced the documents Al to A4 were marked.

                        3. Taking into account the contentions of the complainant the question arises for consideration is:-

(a) Is the complainant entitled to the relief as sought for in the complaint?

4. The complainant purchased a mobile phone handset from the 1^st opposite party and time and again it ran out of use. Notwithstanding the repeated repair, the impairment of the set remained unresolved. The complainant was made to walk again and again in the name of repairing the same. We perused the materials, the complainant produced before us. The complainant produced the purchase bill and other relevant documents. The complainant emphatically asserted that, the loss he sustained was due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The records bear out what all are averred in the complaint. He sustained financial loss as well as mental agony. We are not hesitant to hold that the complainant has been aggrieved. Also as already noted, all these aspects remain unassailed.

            In this back drop, the opposite parties are directed to replace the aforesaid mobile set with a similar new brand one to the complainant. They are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to a cost of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only). The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.

            The complaint is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2010

.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi           

Appendix:-

 Evidence of the complainant:- 

Proof affidavit in lieu of position

Ext. A1            -           The cash bill receipt No.6830 dated, 05/02/2009

Ext. A2            -           The Registered letter with A/D dated, 14/06/2009

Ext. A3            -           The postal receipt dated, 14/06/2009

Ext. A4            -           The postal receipt dated 26/06/2009 to the complainant

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-