DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY 2010.

COMPLAINANT


BY-SRI.P.MALLAIAH,

ADVOCATE, BELLARY.


//VS//


SRI. S. A. JABBAR, S/O MOHAMMED

HUSSAIN, R/O BASAVANAKUNTA,

NEAR SRI. MUTHYLAMMA TEMPLE,

BELLARY.
RESPONDENTS


//Expate//


1. THE MANAGER,

UNIVERSAL MOBILE SALES & SERVICES,

NEAR NATARAJ TALKIES,

DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE ROAD,

BELLARY.

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

UNIVERSAL TELE-COMMUNICATIONS,

No.1 & 2, III MAIN, SHESHADRI PURAM,

BANGALORE- 560 020.

//JUDGEMENT//

Sri. S.M.Reddy, President.

This is the complaint filed by above named Complainant under Sec-12 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the Respondent No.1 and 2 seeking directions to the Respondents to refund the cost of the Nokia Mobile set purchased by him from the said Respondents together with compensation towards deficiency of service, loss of business and cost of the proceedings etc.

2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;
He has purchased Nokia Mobile Handset bearing No.5220 from the Respondent No.1 on 18-02-2009 for a sum of Rs.8,251/- which included the insurance of Rs.201.25, for his personal use and the said set is having one year’s guarantee period from the date of purchase. Further it is the case of Complainant that, within a period of guarantee the said mobile phone was having problem and it was not functioning, so the Complainant approached the Respondent No.1 and handed over the said set to the Respondent No.1 for repairs on 16-07-2009 for which the Respondent No.1 has given Service Job Sheet to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant has visited the shop of Respondent No.1 to take delivery of the same, but the Respondent No.1 has failed to return the said set by effecting repairs and ultimately the Respondent No.1 has stated that the said set has been spoiled and when he requested him for replacement of the set, the Respondent No.1 has given evasive response and handed over the very same mobile set to the Complainant. As result of which the Complainant sustained heavy loss and he has suffered mental agony and torture as he was not in a position to meet his business transactions. So this act of Respondent No.1 amounts to deficiency of service. The Respondent No.1 acted upon the direction of Respondent No.2 so ultimately on 09-10-2009 the Complainant got issued a legal notice to both the Respondents calling upon them to refund the entire consideration amount of said Mobile phone or to replace it with a new Mobile handset. Though the said legal notice was duly served by RPAD on both Respondents, the Respondents have not complied with the said notice and even they have not given any reply to the said notice. So under these circumstances, the Complainant is constrained to file this complaint against both the Respondents. The Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.8,251/- towards cost of the said Mobile phone and has claimed compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.12,000/- towards loss of business with interest @ 18% p.a. from 18-02-2009 etc.



3. Though the notices of this complaint have been duly served on both the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 and 2 have not appeared, so they have been placed exparte. The Complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit evidence as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and closed his side. The Complainant has also filed his written arguments.