Karnataka

Kolar

CC/09/27

Anshu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

03 Aug 2009

ORDER


THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/27

Anshu
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Customer satisfaction Manager
The Proprietor
The proprietor,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 08.04.2009 Disposed on 04.08.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 04th day of August 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 27/2009 Between: Anshu, D/o. Mr. Ajit Kumar Roy, Room # 42, P.G. Ladies Hostel, Sri Devraj Urs Medical College, Tamaka, Kolar, Karnataka. V/S 1. The Proprietor, Authorized Motorola Care Centre, Essem Communications, No. 91/92, Hemachandra Complex, 7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011. Karnataka, India. 2. The Proprietor, The Mobile Store Ltd., 115/A, Opposite Mantri Elite, BTM II Stage, Bannergatta Road, Opposite Mantri Elite, Jaynagar Extension, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. ….Complainant 3. The Customer Satisfaction Manager, Motorola India Private Limited, 415/2, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector-14, Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana, India. ….Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.8,259/- to complainant towards the price of the mobile handset with compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs and interest, etc., 2. It is alleged that the complainant has purchased a Motorola mobile handset for Rs.8,259/- on 09.10.2008 from OP.2 who was the authorized dealer. It is alleged that soon after the purchase of the said mobile handset, it started giving problems and she approached OP.1 for repairs, who was authorized care centre of Motorola handset. After 10 days the mobile handset was returned to complainant, but the problems still persisted and she again took back the mobile handset to OP.1 and this time the mother board was replaced. Further it is alleged that again after 1½ months the problems started with the handset and this time the problems were regarding the speakers, battery, headphone and there was hanging of the handset. Again she approached the OP.1 and the persons in-charge, misbehaved with her by talking very brutally. After 15 days she got back her mobile handset and in the meanwhile she traveled many times. It is alleged that within a few days the problems again started and the camera of mobile stopped working and this time she approached OP.3 and requested to replace the mobile handset with new one or to return the price, for which OP.3 refused. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint on 08.04.2009 alleging that there was warranty for one year and the OPs failed to keep up their terms. 3. The notices of the complaint were sent to OPs under RPAD. Postal acknowledgements or un-served covers, were not returned to this Office. Therefore the service of notice on OPs is held sufficient. The OPs remained absent. The complainant filed her affidavit in support of her case. The complainant submitted that she has already purchased a different mobile handset and she wants return of her money. 4. Apart from stating other things the complainant has stated that after filing of this complaint she received several phone calls from Area Manager of Motorola India, Bangalore for replacing the mobile handset by a new handset, but she rejected the offer as she was not willing to take a Motorola handset again. This fact also shows that the OPs received the notice issued by this Forum. 5. The averments in the complaint supported by the evidence of complainant clearly make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 shall pay Rs.8,259/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Two Hundred Fifty-Nine only) to complainant being the value of mobile handset, within one month from the date of this order. In default, they shall pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the said amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. On payment of the said amount the complainant shall return the old mobile handset to OPs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 04th day of August 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT