Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1581/2008

B.S. Kamath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

IP

22 Aug 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1581/2008

B.S. Kamath
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager, Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd.,
Manager, Nokia Care,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of Filing: 16.07.2008 Date of Order:22.08.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1581 OF 2008 B.S. Kamath No. 94, 12th Main M C Layout, Vijayanagar Bangalore 560 040 Complainant V/S 1. Manager Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. Vijayanagar Branch Opp. Food World, Club Road Vijayanagar, Bangalore 560 040 2. Manager Nokia Care, C/o. Clarity Cells 346, Dr. Rajkumar Road 6th Block Rajajinagar Bangalore 560 010 Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant requesting that opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile handset or to pay back the amount paid by the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased mobile handset Nokia 3110 from opposite party No. 1 on 14.01.2008 for Rs. 4,849/- with one year warranty. During second week of March 2008 the display of the phone went blank. Opposite party No. 2 refused to rectify the mistake and demanded Rs. 2,200/-. On 18.04.2008 complainant wrote a letter to opposite parties. On 13.05.2008 the Consumer Rights Education Awareness Trust addressed letter to opposite party No. 1. But, there is no response from the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint. 2. Notice issued to opposite parties by registered post. Notice to opposite party No. 1 served and opposite party No. 2 has not claimed the notice. The opposite parties have not appeared before the forum. They have not sent their defence version through post also. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 & 2 are placed as exparte. 3. Perused the complaint and documents. 4. The complainant has produced cash bill of opposite party No. 1 to show that he had purchased Nokia 3110 mobile hand set for Rs. 4,849/-. The complainant has also produced copy of letter sent to opposite parties. He had informed display of the phone went blank and Nokia Care Centre refused to repair the same and demanded Rs. 2,200/-. The opposite party No. 1 refused to rectify the manufacturing fault even though warranty period was available for one year from the date of purchase. The complainant had informed the matter to Consumer Rights Education and Awareness Trust. The said trust also had written a letter to opposite party No.1 stating to rectify or replace the defective handset. Even after the request of CREAT opposite party No. 1 has not taken any steps to rectify the mistake or replace the handset. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite parties have not appeared and contested the matter even after service of notice. It appears that they have no defence to make. That is why they remained absent. There is nothing to dis-believe the case put up by the complainant. Therefore, by accepting case of the complainant necessary directions shall have to be issued to the opposite parties for replacement of the mobile handset or for refund of the amount paid by the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to replace the mobile handset Nokia 3110 with a defect free new hand set or refund the amount of Rs. 4,849/- the price of the mobile set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. 6. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER