Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant had purchased one “Motorolla” Handset (mobile phone), model no.C 157 from the shop of O.P.2 for an amount of Rs.3,700/- under cash bill no.19021 dated 9-9-05. This handset was covered with a limited warranty for a period of one year. O.P.2 has issued proper receipt, warranty card, and also the manual. It is the case of complainant that as per the manual, the battery back-up was available for a period of 8 hours. Within two months from the date of purchase, complainant noticed that the battery was not giving back-up more than 1 hour. Complainant approached O.P.2 and he was referred to O.P.3, which is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer that is O.P.1. After examining the mobile handset, O.P.3 replaced the battery, as per job sheet no.1002373 on 28-11-05. In spite of this fact, the same problem continued. Complainant again approached the service centre on 23-12-05 and under job sheet no.002460, O.P.3 replaced “R.F.Board”. Inspite of this fact, the problem was not solved. Hence, complainant got issued a legal notice, demanding refund of Rs.3,400/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and cost of Rs.500 on 23-1-06. As O.P.2 and 3 have not complied, this complaint was filed on 23-2-06, claiming refund of Rs.3,400, compensation of Rs.1,200/- towards expenses and damages of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental agony. The complainant claim total amount of Rs.16,357/-.<br /> 2. Notices were duly served on O.P.1 to 3. O.P.1 who is manufacturer remained absent and represented by O.P.3 subsequently O.P.2 was placed exparte. It is contended by O.P.1 and 3 that there is no deficiency in service and whenever the problem was brought to the notice of service centre, the same was solved. Thereafter, O.P.3 demanded the handset for observation, as there was no manufacturing defect in the handset. The problem was with the network which was used by the complainant. The complainant refused to handover the handset for observation and filed this false complaint. It is further contended by O.P.3 for himself and O.P.1 that even now they are ready and willing to render the service, if the handset is delivered for proper examination.<br /> 3. There is no need to discuss the facts at length. When the matter was posted for hearing, O.P.3 filed a memo on 24-5-06 that he is ready and willing to replace the disputed handset with new handset, even if it is costing more by Rs.200 to 300/-. As per this memo, O.P.3 brought few handsets before the Forum and offered the same to the complainant on 30-05-05. But, the complainant refused the handset and moved an application for appointment of a commissioner. This application was not required to be allowed because the O.P.3 has came with offer of replacement of the handset. Subsequently, O.P.3 remained absent. Complainant is examined as C.W.1. Heard the learned counsel for complainant.<br /> 4. Short points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether complainant is entitled for refund of the amount if so at what rate of interest?<br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the damages and cost?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> 1. Point no.1: Affirmative – interest at the rate of 15% p.a.<br /> 2. Point no.2: Damages of Rs.300 and cost of Rs.200.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 and 2 :- The complainant has surrendered the disputed handset before the Forum. It is an admitted fact, that this handset was examined by O.P.3 on 28-11-05 and 23-12-05. It is undisputed that there was problem with the handset during warranty period. On first occasion O.P.3 has received the battery. On the second occasion, he has replaced R.F.Board, which is integral part of the handset. This fact is sufficient to come to conclusion that the handset, which was sold the complainant was having manufacturing defect.<br /> 7. The complainant has claimed refund of Rs.3,700/- and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. in his legal notice dated 23-1-06. We have no hesitation to grant this relief sought by the complainant. The amount of interest from the date of legal notice up to 23-6-06 (5 months) comes to Rs.232. Any how, we round this figure to Rs.300 up to the end of June 2006.<br /> 8. Regarding the damages onething is to be kept in mind that damages can not be awarded on remote cause. There is no evidence to show that complainant has suffered some other loss. It is admitted that the handset was working properly, but the battery life was short. In view of this fact, we award an amount of Rs.300 towards damages and 200 towards the cost. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> 2. O.P.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund an amount of Rs.3,700/- with interest of Rs.300 up to 30th June 2006. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant is also entitled to recover damages of Rs.300 and cost of Rs.200 from O.P.1 to 3.<br /> <br /> 4. O.P.1 to 3 are directed to pay to the complainant, or deposit before the Forum an amount of Rs.4300 + cost of Rs.200 on or before 30-06-06 and receive the old handset along with documents from the Forum. This should be done under intimation to the complainant. If O.P.1 to 3 fail to pay the above mentioned amount, the complainant is entitled for future interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the total amount of Rs.4300/- till the date of payment, apart from the cost.<br /> <br /> 5. Send certified copies of this judgement and order to both parties under C.O.P.<br />