<br /> By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a purchaser of a Mobile hand set of LG C 2100 IMEI 356127000 14329865 from the Opposite Party on 24.12.2005 at the cost of Rs.5,580/-. The set had the warranty of one year. After few days of use the hand set showed different complaints and the set was given at the shop of the Opposite Party for rectification. The Opposite Party had given back the hand set after curing the defects and it was also assured by the Opposite Party that if any complaints was further shown by the hand set it would be replaced. The hand set showed the similar complaint and it was given at the shop of the Opposite Party along with charges on 13.4.2005. The Opposite Party gave an assurance that the price of the hand set Rs.5,580/- would <br /> - 2 -<br /> be refunded after one week or an another hand set of the same make would be given to the complainant. After one week the Complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party to get the new hand set or for the refund of the value of the Mobile hand set. The Opposite Party said different dates for paying back the new hand set or giving the hand set which is free from all defects. The Mobile hand set which was given to the Opposite Party is still in his possession it is neither repaired nor replaced. The act of the Opposite party is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Opposite Party is liable to pay the new hand set of worth Rs.5,500/- along with cost and compensation Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The purchase of the Mobile hand set of LG C 2100 on 24.12.2005 is admitted. After 2 months the hand set had minor complaints and it was given for service in the shop. The hand set was given back to the Complainant but he was not ready to receive it instead there was an insistence on the Complainant's side to get an another set. The company representative had given a costly hand set in latest model C 1610 was given to the Complainant by the representative of the company. The warranty given to the mobile hand set is only for one year but in the particular case the complainant was given a special consideration and better set was given in substitute. The Opposite Party is in the custom of sending hand set having complaints to the company and those which are repaired are given back to the customers without delay. The Complainant is given an another hand set instead of giving the repaired one. The complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 3. Points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the side of the<br /> Opposite Party?.<br /> 2.Relief and cost.<br /> (Contd...... 3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> 4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and he is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A4 are marked to substantiate the allegations in the complaint. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The audio Cassette is marked as MO1 which is produced by the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> 5. The case of the Complainant is that the mobile hand set purchased from the Opposite Party's shop has complaints and it was given for repair in the shop of the Opposite Party from where it was purchased. The set was not repaired and more over the request on the part of the Complainant to give an another set instead of the defective one is not treated positively. The Opposite Party was given the set in the warranty period. The Opposite Party swearing the contention and filed affidavit. In cross examination the Complainant deposed that the hand set was not audible, intelligible and more over the set was warmed up in conversation and during that period in his residence place there was no mobile phone tower. On examination the Complainant further deposed that while giving the mobile hand set in the shop whether the Opposite Party was present there or not is not known to him. The Complainant was not given any other hand set instead of the Mobile hand set which was surrendered to the Opposite Party. According to the Complainant the hand set is defective but the company who is responsible for rectifying the defect is not pleaded as a party in the complaint. Ext.A1(a) shows that the Mobile hand set was entrusted in the shop for repair. The same was repaired or replaced by a new one according to the complainant. The Opposite Party on examination deposed that a new set was given to the Complainant instead of giving the old one. The Opposite Party produced the Audio Cassette as MO1 in which the conversation between the Complainant and Opposite Party were produced for the notice. The CD was operated in presence of the counsel of Complainants and Opposite Parties. The recording in the CD of the conversation between Complainant and Opposite Party shows that the Complainant admitted the receival of an another Mobile hand set <br /> (Contd........4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> instead of receiving back the old one which was given for repair. The case of the Complainant is that he was not given any hand set neither repaired nor any new one. According to the Opposite Party the Complainant suppressed the fact that he received an another hand set from Opposite Party. The issuance of the new hand set is not made in black and white. From the above inferences we are in the opinion that the Complainant was issued an another Mobile hand set in substitute but it is not disclosed in the complaint and the complainant has suppressed the fact that a set in substitute was given. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. The point No.1 is found accordingly.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2:- The point No.1 is not in favour of the Complainant, the detail discussion of point No.2 is not necessary.<br /> <br /> Int the result the complaint is dismissed and no order upon costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER-I : Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER-II: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Contd........5)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> - 5 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. A.P. Paulose Complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> OPW1 Ranjith. M. K. Business.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1. Cash Bill. dt: 24.12.2005.<br /> A1 (a) Back side of Cash bill. dt: 13.04.2006.<br /> A2. Copy of the Lawyer notice. dt: 02.06.2006.<br /> A3. Postal Receipt. dt: 02.06.2006.<br /> A4. Acknowledgment. <br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> <br /> MO1. Audio Cassette.<br /> <br />