Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 17.07.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party no. 1 to replace the defective mobile handset with a new mobile handset after thorough verification and checking of the same.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as Compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that on the persuasion of opposite party no. 1 he has purchased a NOKIA mobile handset from opposite party no. 1 after paying Rs. 2,250/- on 19.11.2011 vide annexure- 1. When the aforesaid handset was made operational by inserting SIM card then it was detected same trouble. After six months of the purchase the aforesaid handset became very defective as there was no display as there was no display of name, number etc. on its screen besides some other minor problems. Thereafter the complainant contacted opposite party no. 1 who advised the complainant to approach opposite party no. 2 for rectification of his grievance because opposite party no. 2 is the authorized service center of NOKIA Company.
It is further case of the complainant that when complainant contacted opposite party no. 2 the staff of opposite party no. 2 checked the mobile and stated that there was LCD problem for rectification for which the complainant have to pay Rs. 390/-. The complainant protested on the ground that opposite party no. 1 had assured at the time of selling the handset to complainant that for any repair for one year since the date of purchase the complainant will not have to pay any amount. However, when the opposite party no. 2 insisted then the complainant paid Rs. 390/- on the assurance that no any amount will be charged for the same fault for one month. The aforesaid cash receipt granted by opposite party no. 2 had been annexed as annexure – 2 by the complainant.
The further grievance of the complainant is that within one month i.e. after 28 days, the complainant observed the same problem i.e. non display of number, name etc. on the screen of the mobile. Then he approached opposite party no. 2 who after verification again demanded Rs. 390/-. The complainant seriously protested and reminded of his assurance which the opposite party no. 2 has made on 23.06.2012 i.e. at the time of repair of the handset. Then staff of opposite party no. 2 became angry then he crossed the paper and stated that complainant is free to make complaint anywhere. The aforesaid document has annexed as annexure – 3.
The grievance of the complainant is that for the aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered much in the form of mental tension, agony and humiliation.
From order sheet dated 12.07.2013 it appears that the notice on opposite party no. 1 has been declared valid as the opposite party no. 1 has refused to receive notice. So far opposite party no. 2 is concerned, as the registered notice issued on opposite party no. 2 did not returned unserved, then vide order dated 12.07.2013 notice on the opposite party no. 2 was also declared valid.
It further transpires that despite allowing several adjournments when opposite parties neither filed vakalatnama nor filed written statement hence they were debarred from filing written statement and the case was heard ex – parte.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
From bare perusal of annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that the complainant has purchased the aforesaid mobile from opposite party no. 1 after paying Rs. 2,250/-. From bare perusal of annexure – 2 and 3 it is crystal clear that the complainant had paid Rs. 390/- to opposite party no. 2 by way of repair cost and when the complainant again came to opposite party no. 2 for the same problem of his handset, then opposite party no. 2 made cutting on the aforesaid paper vide annexure – 3 which clearly discloses that the defect of LCD display was still persisting.
It goes without saying that as the complainant has stated aforementioned fact on oath and there is no counter version of opposite parties, hence we have no option but to rely on the fact stated by the complainant which clearly discloses deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
For the discussion made above we direct the complainant to pay Rs. 2,250/- ( Rs. Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party no. 1 will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 2,250/- ( Rs. Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only ) till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 is at liberty to realize the above said amount of Rs. 2,250/- ( Rs. Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only ) from the opposite party no. 2.
Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- ( Rs. Two Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
