Date of filing  :  28-01-2011

                                                               Date of order :  01-04-2011                                                                                                                                                                

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C. 18/2011

                         Dated this, the 1^st  day of   April   2011

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                        : MEMBER

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                           : MEMBER

Ajith.K, Valiyapoil,                                         }  Complainant

Olat.Po.Kasaragod.Dt. 671310

1. The Proprietor, Mobile Park,                   } Opposite parties

     Shop.No.2. Juma Masjid Building,

     Opp. Everest Lodge, Main Road,

     Payyanur.

2. The Regional Officer, Nokia Regional

     Office, (South), Chermadi Chamber,

     BCC 11 floor, Kaurichipalli Road,

     Ravipuram, Cochin. 682020.

(Exparte)

                                                                         O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            The gist of the complaint is as follows:

            Complainant purchased a Nokia 5130-C mobile phone for `5350/- on 17-2-2010 from opposite party No.1.  It was having one year warranty.  But it became defective in Nov.2010 i.e. within the warranty period. Therefore it was entrusted with opposite party No.1 for repair. After  about one month opposite party No.1 returned the same stating that it is not repairable. Though it was further entrusted with the authorized service centres  of Nokia placed in Kannur and Kasaragod  those centres also  returned the mobile stating that it is not repairable since it is repaired from outside.  According to complainant he has not entrusted the mobile with any one for repair.  Hence the complaint.

2.         Though opposite parties served with the notices sent by registered post, they did not care to appear to explain their case.  Hence opposite parties had to be set exparte.

3.         Complainant examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked through PW1.  Complainant heard and documents perused.

4.         Complainant as PW1 during evidence has submitted that after filing the complaint some one from the Kasaragod Service Centre informed him that they are ready to replace the mobile phone.

5.         From the evidence adduced by PW1 it is clear that opposite parties have committed deficiency in their after sales service that ought to have been provided to the complainant.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective mobile phone with another defect free one having the same price and also pay a cost of `1,500/-. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite parties shall pay a compensation  `8,000/- including costs  to the complainant . 

     Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. 17-1-2011. Cash bill issued by  OP No.1.

A2. User Guide Nokia

A3.Service Job Sheet.

PW1. Ajith.

     Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-       

MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT