CC No.818.2014

Filed on 05.05.2014

Disposed on.23.01.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU– 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JANUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.818/2014

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

        PRESIDENT

              Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                     MEMBER

                                              V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 05.05.2014 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties the Brand new mixer as replacement, 5 times money back as mixer price of Rs.16,500/- and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 15^th April 2014, the Complainant purchased the brand New Kenstar stallion Dx mixer from Bharathi Steel centre at 1^st use like:Finding hard to fix the jars to mixer and same to open the jars. Next day he reported the shop keeper and he told, will lodge a complaint with Kenstar customer service, get it repaired and return back the mixer. Till now he has visited his shop almost 7 times and came to know that he did not lodge any complaint to service centre.   Even he requested shop keeper to give another mixer as replacement but he denied for the same.  Then he lodged the complaint with Kenstar.  Hence, this complaint. 

2. The notice was served on the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 but fails to put their appearance.  Hence placed ex-parte.  Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 put their appearance through their counsel by filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order.  The said application was allowed and ex-parte order passed against the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is set aside and filed the common version.  In the version, the Complainant had purchased the Kenstar mixer 3 Jar vie Model.  STLDLX at M/s Bharathi Steel Center on 15.04.2014 for Rs.3,300/- but denied that the mixer is a defective one as alleged by the Complainant.  On purchase of the said mixer the Complainant approached to the Opposite Party No.1 and demanded to refund the cost of the said mixer without showing any manufacturer defect or faulty materials of the said product, even though the Opposite Party No.1 informed to the Complainant, instead of refund of the amount they can replace the new mixer.   The Complainant vehemently denied the replacement and demanded to pay three times of the cost of the mixer.  The Opposite Party No.1 had ready to replace the new mixer and advised him to collect the same, instead of collecting the said mixer, he is making a habit of writing continuous mails with a malicious intention by denoting false representations to the Dealer, customer care centre and employees of Opposite Party No.2 and filed the present complaint.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

3. The Complainant, Sri.Santosh H has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, the affidavit of one Sri.V.Subramani has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

4.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

5.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

POINT (2):-As per the final Order

REASONS

6.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the averments of the complaint and the version filed by the Opposite Parties, it is not in dispute that on 15.04.2014 the Complainant purchased Kenstar mixer from 1^st Opposite Party Bharathi Steel centre.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and also produced the Tax Invoice.  As looking into this Tax Invoice on 15.04.2014 under Bill No.257.  The Complainant has purchased Kenstar mixi 3 Jar STLDLX for a sum of Rs.3,300/- from the 1^st Opposite Party Bharathi Steel Center.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged, thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant had purchased Kenstar Mixi on 15.04.2014 from the Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.3,300/-.

7.  It is further allegation of the Complainant that at 1^st  use like:Finding hard to fix the jars to mixer and same to open the jars.  Next day he reported the shop keeper and he told, will lodge a complaint with Kenstar Customer Service, get it repaired and return back the mixer. Till now he has visited the Opposite Party shop almost 7 times and came to know that he did not lodge any complaint to service centre and requested shop keeper to give another mixer as replacement but he denied for the same and lodged the complaint with Kenstar.  Till it is not repaired by Kenstar service centre nor shop keeper, it is lying with shopkeeper itself.  To substantiate this contention, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced the Mail correspondence. As looking into this mail correspondence, it does not reveals that there is a manufacturing defect in the mixi purchased by the Complainant.  On the other hand, they may some defect in the mixi. 

9.  As the defence taken by the Opposite Parties they are ready to replace the faulty mixi with new one at for that the Complainant has not agreed and demanded for refund of the amount.  To substantiate this, one Subramani official of Opposite Party No.2 reiterated the same and to discard the version of the Complainant, there is no contra evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the evidence given by the Subramani that the Complainant is refused to receive the new mixi in replacement of defective mixi.  Apart from that the Complainant has not placed any evidence to show that the mixi purchased by the Complainant has manufactured defect.  Absolutely, there is no evidence against the Opposite Parties that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are adopting unfair trade practice. The Complainant fails to prove the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party.    Hence, this point is held in the Negative.

10. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 23^rd day of January 2017)

        MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Santosh H, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Tax Invoice dt.15.04.2014

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.V.Subramani, on behalf of the Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                             -Nil-