CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No327/10
Friday, the 28th day of January, 2011
Petitioner : Stalin.K.T.
Karrikkathara veedu,
Aakkamkunnu, Puthuppally,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K. Jidhish)
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) Spice Mobiles Ltd. D-1
Sector-3, Noida-201301,
Uttar Pradesh Rep. by
Managing Director.
2) Mobile Zone,
Temple Road,
Kottayam Rep by its
Proprietor.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
The case of the petitioner, filed on 21-12-10, is as follows:-
Petitioner purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.2650/- from the 2nd opposite party. The said mobile phone was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The warranty period of the mobile phone is for one year. According to the opposite party the mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party is of good quality and is free from all manufacturing defects when compared to the other mobile phone in the market. From the very next day of the purchase of the mobile phone it showed serious problems and became defunct. Petitioner entrusted the mobile phone to the authorized service centre of the opposite party. But even after repeated services mobile phone was not functioning. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in giving an inferior quality mobile phone amounts to unfair trade practice. So the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to replace the defective mobile phone with a brand new mobile phone or refund of Rs. 2650/-, purchase price of mobile phone, petitioner prays for compensation of Rs. 5000/- and cost of the proceedings.
Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties were absent and were set expartee.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and Exts.A1 to A2 documents.
Point No.1
Since the opposite party was set expartee. We are constrained to rely on the sole proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner in his affidavit averred that the mobile phone purchased from the 2nd opposite party manufactured by the 1st opposite party is not working even after repeated services conducted by the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party. Without any contra evidence. We find that act of the opposite party in giving inferior quality mobile phone to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed. In the result opposite party is ordered to refund the petitioner an amount of Rs 2650/-, cost of the mobile phone. The opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for loss and sufferings sustained to the petitioner along with a litigation cost of Rs. 500/-. Both opposite parties are find jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the receipt of a copy of the order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1- Bill dated 12//7/10
Ext.A2-User’s manual
Documents of the opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
