M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The 1st opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant, had purchased a Nokia Mobile Handset, from the 1st opposite party on 18.9.2006, for a sum of Rs.13,109/-, which caused problem, even from the next day, and upon complaint to the 1st opposite party, the complainant was informed to approach the 2nd opposite party, a service provider.
(3.) The 2nd opposite party, taking the defective handset, assured to rectify the defect, and returned the set by 16.10.2006, after repair, assuring no problem will occur, obtaining the signature. The complainant was shocked, after reaching home, since the same problem occurred in the set, which was reported to the 2nd opposite party, for which there was no proper reply, though he had taken back the handset for repair thereafter. The 2nd opposite party, informing that the set purchased by her, is an old model, offered to give a new model, but not acted accordingly, whereas, an old set was given in a new box, which the complainant refused to accept. Thus the 1st opposite party had committed negligent act, by selling a defective model, and the 2nd opposite party committed deficiency in service, not rectifying the mistake, being an authorized service provider. Therefore, they should be directed to pay the cost of the mobile, as well to pay the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.;