BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 324/2010 Filed on 13..10..2010
Dated : 16..02..2011
Complainant:
Jose Varghese, 'Pentagon', Near Nellimoodu, Murukkumpuzha – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 302.
(By Adv. Rajatha P. Jacob)
Opposite party:
The Proprietor, 'Orbit Mobile, Mobile Phone Sales and Services, Opposite District Co-operative Bank, Kazhakkuttom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 04..02..2011, the Forum on 16..02..2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The case of the complaint is as follows: Complainant is the owner of Nokia Mobile phone, Model 6020 worth Rs. 5000/- EMEI, No. is 771928/10535045. The complainant entrusted the mobile handset with the opposite party for replacement of its display panel and a job slip No.1975 was issued by the opposite party. The opposite party agreed to get it repaired on 29/9/2009. On 29/9/2009 the complainant approached the opposite party in the shop with slip No.1975 (bill) to get back the mobile. But to the quite dismay the opposite party issued another handset of same model. On verification it was seen that the IMEI No. was entirely different from that of his own handset. The complainant invited the attention of the proprietor and the opposite party told they will return the handset within 2 days. The job card issued by the opposite party is produced herewith for verification. The opposite party issued the job card in lieu of slip No. 1975 which was misplaced by the opposite party, when it was handed over to him for delivery of mobile handset on 29/9/2009. Thus on 1/10/2009 the complainant again went to the opposite party's shop and it was known that the headset was wrongly delivered to some other customer. On 5/10/2009 and on 9/10/2009 the complainant again approached the opposite party. But he was not able to deliver the mobile handset entrusted by the complainant. Thus on 16/10/2009 the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party which was received on 19/10/2009. In the said notice the complainant demanded the opposite party to compensate his loss to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- as the handset was permanently lost from the custody of the opposite party. Even on receipt of the said notice the opposite party did not give any importance to give the original handset or compensate the same or even sent a reply. There is a clear negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant lost all his personal as well as professional phone numbers and other datas stored in the phone. The complainant being a lawyer by profession it has adversely affected his career. The loss due to this cannot be compensated in terms of money. Even though the compensation in this aspect is to be calculated in monetary terms.
2. The opposite party, the Proprietor, Orbit Mobile accepted notice from the Forum, but did not turn up to contest the case. Hence the opposite party remained ex-parte.
Points to be ascertained:
Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
3. Points (i) & (ii): To prove the case of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and has produced 4 documents and documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallened. Ext. P1 is the job card issued by the opposite party dated 26/9/2009. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 14/10/2009. Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party dated 19/10/2009. Ext. P4 is the postal receipt. From Ext. P1 it is evident that the complainant had entrusted the phone to the opposite party for replacement of its display panel. The complainant several times approached the opposite party to receive his mobile set. But till date the opposite party did not return mobile phone to the complainant. The opposite party accepted the lawyer's notice issued by the complainant on 19/10/2009. But even after thatdid not care to sent a reply or tried to settle the matter. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum and the notice from this Forum was accepted by the opposite party, but they never turned up to contest the case. These acts of the opposite party itself shows their adament and irresponsible attitude. As a service provider it is the duty of the opposite party to do his service with utmost care. Due to the negligent and irresponsible act of the opposite party, the mobile phone was lost from the service centre. Due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party the complainant has suffered loss and sufferings. The complainant being a Lawyer by Profession it has adversely affected his career. The complainant has lost all his personal as well as professional phone numbers and other datas stored in the phone. The loss due to this cannot be compensated in terms of money. But taking the facts and circumstances into consideration we find that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be sufficient for compensating the same. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate to the complainant. The complainant stated that the price of the mobile phone was Rs. 5,000/-.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to return the mobile phone which has been entrusted by the complainant to him along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order OR in the alternative shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance of the order one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which 9% annual interest shall be paid to the amount from the date of order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2011.
BEENA KUMARI. A.,
MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA,. MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No: 324/2010
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Job card issued by the opposite party dated 26/9/2009
P2 : Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant dated 14/10/2009.
P3 : Acknowledgement card dated 19/10/2009
P4 : Postal receipt
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
