This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 14-03-11 in the presence of complainant and opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking reimbursement of cost of mobile phone i.e., Rs.4,800/-, Rs.500/- towards compensation, Rs.15,000/- towards traveling expenses coming to the Court, Rs.1,000/- as costs.

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant purchased CTEL mobile for Rs,4800/- from the opposite party.   The warranty for the said mobile was for a period of one year.   On the next day of purchase i.e., on 29-09-09 key buttons were not functioning properly.   For repairs the opposite party charged Rs.200/- and returned the mobile on 4-10-09.   Subsequently, the second sim was not functioning which the opposite party repaired.   On 30-12-09 ring tones were not functioning.   The complainant is an LIC agent.   The said mobile though repaired number of times did not function properly.  On 18-08-10 the opposite party promised to replace the mobile.   The mobile was with the opposite party.   As the opposite party failed to attend the repairs properly, its conduct amounted to deficiency of service.    

3.      The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant purchased CTEL mobile phone model KT-6358 on 28-09-09 for a valid consideration.   At the time of purchase the complainant was given full details regarding limited warranty.   On accepting the same the complainant purchased the said mobile.  The opposite party did not commit deficiency of service.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief?

6.     Admitted facts in this complaint are:

1. Purchase of mobile by the complainant from the opposite party is not in dispute (Ex.A-1).
2. Ex.A-3 receipt revealed that the complainant returned the mobile to the opposite party on                  18-08-10.

7.    POINT No.1:-    Ex.A-2 deals with the warranty for a product and the period of warranty.

        It is not the case of the opposite party that there was no defect in the product.   The opposite party failed to return the mobile to the complainant even after filing the complaint.   Ex.A-3 revealed that the complainant handed over the mobile to the opposite party as the camera was not functioning.   Ex.A-3 falsified the denial of the opposite party regarding return of mobile from the complainant.   That itself amounted to deficiency of service.   The purchase was on            18-08-09 and the complainant returned the mobile on 18-08-10 i.e., within a year.   The conduct of the opposite party either in not replacing the mobile or returning the price of the mobile to the complainant amounted to deficiency of service.  In view of the afore mentioned discussions, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

POINT No.2:-    The complainant did not file any document to show that the said mobile did not function properly earlier.   Non return of mobile from 18-08-10 to the complainant might have caused some inconvenience to the complainant. Under those circumstances, awarding Rs.1500/- as damages and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint will meet the ends of justice. 

        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,800/- together with interest @12% p.a., from 18-08-10 till the date of payment.
2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1500/- as damages and Rs.500/- towards costs.
3. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

        Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 17th day of              March, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :   NIL

                                                                                           PRESIDENT