DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/5
M/s Revann's Nokia Care.
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
2. Sri D.Krishnappa
Complainant Sri. Kumar, S/o Arabalaiah, R/at No.EWS 108, I stage, Kuvempunagar, Mysore. (By Sudarshan .V, Advocate)
1. The Manager, M/s Sangeetha, Dealers in Mobile and Mysore Electrical and Electronic Items, # 980, Panchamantra Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.
2. Proprietor, M/s Revanna’s Nokia Care, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Mysore. ( Exparte) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service
Date of filing of complaint : 05-01-2009
Date of appearance of O.P. : - Date of order : 05-03-2009
Duration of Proceeding : - PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri.D.Krishnappa, President 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief is, that he on 20.06.2008 visited the shop of the first opposite party who had displayed a board in front of his shop, offering gift hampers of Kodak camera 4 stroke and DVD player to the customers who purchase the goods worth of Rs. 13,000/-. That he on that day purchased a Nokia company, 6500 slider model mobile phone by paying Rs.13,514/-.
Then he demanded for giving gift hamper for which the first opposite party issued an acknowledgement assuring to deliver the gift hamper after informing him. But, thereafter the first opposite party failed to deliver the gift hamper. In the mean time the mobile phone he had purchased, developed some defects and thus handed over it to the first opposite party for repair. It was returned to him after repair. Again on 08.09.2008 when problem persisted he again gave that mobile phone to the first opposite party who in turn forwarded it to the second opposite party which is the service centre for repair, but the opposite parties have failed to return the hand set till day.
2. Considering the grievance of the complainant, notice was ordered to the first opposite party only who is duly served with the notice, but he has remained absent is set exparte.
3. The complainant in the course of enquiry into the complaint filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what has been stated by him in his complaint. He has also produced the bill under which he purchased the mobile set, an acknowledgement said to had been issued by the first opposite party for giving gift hamper and the job card for having given the mobile phone for repair to the first opposite party and in turn to second opposite party.
4. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.
5. On perusal of the compliant averments, affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents he has produced reveal that the complainant on 20.06.2008 purchased a mobile phone from the first opposite party for Rs.13,514/-. But, the complainant have not produced the documents and not invited our attention to any of the publicity or article of the first opposite party in he having had offered gift hamper for having purchased article worth Rs.13,000/- and above. However the complainant has produced an acknowledgement said to have been issued by the first opposite party. Firstly this acknowledgement is not in any letter head or documents of the first opposite party undertaking assuring to give gift hamper to the complainant. Even the content of this acknowledgement do not say any where in this the first opposite party having had offered to give gift hamper. Therefore it is clear that the complainant has not placed any acceptable material in this first opposite party having had agreed or offered a gift hamper to the complainant in he having had purchased a mobile phone worth more than Rs. 13,000/- as such we do not find any substance in the complainant that the opposite party has offered a gift hamper to the complainant for having purchased a mobile set and the first opposite party latter has failed to honour it.
6. Coming to the deficiency in the service of the first opposite party in he having had not returned the mobile phone after necessary service which was handed over to him. The complainant has produced a job card issued by the second opposite party in name of the complainant, but the grievance of the complainant reveal that this complaint had entrusted the defective mobile set to the first opposite party who in turn has given it for service. Therefore admittedly there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second opposite party, thus the first opposite party is alone is accountable to this complainant and that the second opposite party if at all is accountable only to the first opposite party and not to this complainant. This job card disclose that the mobile telephone of complainant was forwarded to second opposite party for necessary repair and service and it was to be redelivered to the complainant after required repair and service through second opposite party. The sworn statement of the complainant that the first opposite party has not returned his mobile phone has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted.
The first opposite party was given an opportunity by this forum by serving notice of the complaint has not availed the opportunity to oppose the claim of the complainant, under these circumstances we find no reasons to disbelieve the grievance of the complainant, as such the complaint deserves to be allowed in part and we pass the following order.
ORDER 1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties No.1 is directed to return the mobile phone of the complainant after its effective repair within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the first opposite party is directed to refund Rs.13,514/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment. 3. The first opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.