CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 09/12
Thursday the 31st day of May, 2012
Petitioner : Dr,Ragesh R,
Rekha Bhavan,
Maniyar PO, Punalur
Vs.
Opposite party : Univer Cell Telecommunication India Pvt.Ltd,
CSI Commercial Complex, B.No.413A
Below HDFC Bank, Bakers jn
Kottayam-686 001.
2) Sunstrike Telecom Pvt.Ltd
F-11 Udyog Nagar
Ind.Area, Main Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi,
New Delhi-110041.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant purchased a ‘Rage Robo V’ Model dual sim mobile phone manufactured by Sun Strike Telecom for Rs.1030/- from UniverCell Telecommunications on 30/11/11. After 20 days, its speaker stopped working. It didn’t ring when a call comes and if attended, the voice from the other side couldn’t be heard. On 23/12/12, the complainant asked the dealer to give the money back or replace it with another handset. They replaced it with the same model. After 12 days of the said replacement, the replaced handset also stopped working in the same way. So the complainant asked for refund of the purchase price. This time the opposite parties denied refund and replacement and advised to send the handset to the company for repair. According to the complainant if it is replaced or repaired, in future at any time the handset may stop working. So the complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of purchase price, compensation Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost Rs.500/-.
Notice was served to both the opposite parties but they were called absent and were set expartee.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and Ext.A1
Point No.1
The complainant deposed that the”Rage Robo V” model dual sim mobile phone purchased from the opposite parties for Rs. 1030/-stopped working after 20 days of its purchase. The complainant further deposed that the replaced handset also showed the very same malfunctioning and that the said matter was informed to the opposite parties. It was again deposed by the complainant that the opposite parties were not ready to refund the purchase price or for any adjustment. As the opposite parties chose not to contest, the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged. On scanning the evidence placed on record, we are of the view that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complainant is allowed.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 will jointly and severally refund the purchase price of Rs.1030/- along with compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of bills
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
