CC No.1418.2016
Filed on 19.10.2016
Disposed on 31.12.2018
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1418/2016
PRESENT:
Sri. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.
PRESIDENT
Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | | Sri.Basavaraj B.Mavinmarad, (Ubbem Cad Services), S/o Late Baramgowda, Aged about 52 Years, H.No.3864/A, 4th Cross, 1st Main Road Gayathrinagar, Bengaluru-560021. |
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY | | M/s Prakash Telecom, H.No.574, Chikkapete, Vijayalaxmi Theater Near, Sumukh Silk Opposite, Bengaluru-560053. |
ORDER
BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER
- This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 19.10.2016 under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to refund of Rs.1,530/- and to pay loss of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for waste of time and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant.
- The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:
In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 23.12.2015 he purchased Nokia 105 Dual sim mobile from Opposite Party by paying Rs.1,530/-. On 20.03.2016 the said mobile was under repair. So he went to Nokia authorized service centre for repair. But they told that mobile was not in condition for repair, hence better to replace the mobile from where the Complainant purchased said mobile. So on 23.08.2016 Complainant approached Opposite Party and deliver mobile set for repair. But Opposite Party neither repair nor replaced the mobile for 10 days. But later Opposite Party handed over the same mobile set by assuring that mobile was repaired. But after one week again mobile was in same problem. Due to this, the Complainant suffered lot. Hence this complaint.
3. Even though notice was served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte.
4. In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. Heard the arguments of the complainant.
5. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
- If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?
6. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (1):- Affirmative
POINT (2):- As per the final Order
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the complainant, it reveals that the Opposite Party runs a mobile shop. On 23.12.2015 Complainant purchased Nokia 105 Dual Sim mobile from Opposite Party by paying Rs.1530/-. To substantiate this, the Complainant filed his affidavit. In his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and in support of his testimony, he produced copy of Sales Invoice. By looking into this documents, it is clearly shows that the Complainant was a customer of Opposite Party and he purchased Nokia mobile 105 Dual Sim on 23.12.2015 by paying Rs.1530/-. On 20.03.2016 the mobile was under repair. So Complainant went to Nokia Authorized Service Centre for repair. But they told that mobile was not in repair condition, hence better to replace the mobile from Opposite Party where he purchased. On 23.08.2016 Complainant given his mobile with Opposite Party for repair. But Opposite Party neither repaired nor replaced the mobile for 10 days. Later Opposite Party given back the same mobile by assuring that mobile was repaired. But after one week Complainant faced same problems in his mobile. The Complainant requested Opposite Party to replace the mobile. But Opposite Party not bothered for the same. Due to this, the Complainant suffered mental agony. The evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged. If at all, the Opposite Party replaced the mobile or rendered good service to the Complainant, Opposite Party ought to have produced relevant evidence. But there is no such evidence. Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party neither replaced the mobile nor fulfill the demand of the Complainant. To disbelieve the version of the Complainant nothing was on record. Inspite of repeated request, the Opposite Party not bothered to fulfill the demand of the Complainant. Thereby, this clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, this point is held in affirmative.
8. POINT No.2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.1,530/- to the Complainant.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of this litigation to the Complainant.
The Opposite Party is granted 45 days’ time from the date of this order.
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, 31st day of December 2018)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:
- Sri.Basavaraj B.Mavinamarad, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.
List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:
- Copy of Sales Invoice dated.23.12.2015.
Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
NIL
List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:
NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
