Karnataka

Gadag

CC/18/2018

Ramchandrappa.V.Arkachar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Hiremath

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

 O R D E R

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA.C.H., PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

        2.       The averments of the complaints in brief are:

             The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that he is resident of Beloor village had purchased Oppo A37 Gold Mobile set from the OP-Shop on 11-08-2017 by paying a sum of Rs.10,198/-. It is further averred that on 07-01-2018, the Complainant has lost  his mobile set and he has also filed a police complaint regarding the same at Badami Police Station.

          It is further stated that while purchasing the mobile set, it is mentioned on the mobile kit that, if the complainant lost the mobile, they will provide another mobile set at half rate.   Hence the complainant approached the OP requesting them to provide another mobile set at half rate.  But the OP postponed the matter on one or other pretext and cheated the complainant.  Due to this attitude of the OP, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony.  Therefore the complainant issued the legal notice asking them to provide the mobile set at half rate, but OP does not replied the same.   Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming direction to OP to provide mobile set at half rate and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony. 

              3.    The Forum registered a case and issued a notice to the OP. After service of the notices the OP appeared in person and filed the written version.   The OP admitted about purchase of the said mobile set by the complainant from them.  It is further contended that the OP is only doing the role as a facilitator and is permitted only to sell the mobile sets without opening the seal of the sealed container box as a retailer including the Oppo series of mobile handsets.  It is further contended that the said mobile set of the complainant is not covered with theft protection, as such the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief for the loss of his mobile set from the OP.   It is further contended that the complainant has issued legal notice and they replied the same on 22-02-2018, but the complainant has not stated about it in his complaint.    It is further stated that the complainant has not produced any document to show that the mobile set was covered with add-on service of theft protection policy issued by the OP at the time of purchase of the mobile set and hence as there is no deficiency in service rendered to the complainant by this OP at any point of time and there is no cause of action arises against this OP to file this complaint, hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.   Hence OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OP.

           4.     The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with Xerox copy of 09 documents which are unmarked.  The OP also filed his affidavit evidence along with copy of reply notice given to the complainant.  

 

 

 

5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents as per CP Act?
2.   3.	Whether complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for?                                              What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative.

Point No.2 –Partly affirmative.

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

R E A S O N S

           6.  POINT NO.1 & 2:  The complainant submits that while purchasing the mobile from the OP, OP assured and mentioned at the back of the invoice that if the hand set is lost, the OPs are ready to provide a new hand set in half of the price.  The complainant lost his mobile set on 07/01/2018, it has been purchased on 11/08/2017 and he had filed a complaint before the Police Station at Badami Police Station and they issued the endorsement stating that they had not traced the phone of the complainant.  While filing the complaint, complainant produced the legal notice issued by him on 22/02/2018 and 13/04/2018 and the complainant submits that the OPs have made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by refusing the same.

         7) On the other hand the OP denied that they are not assured as stated in the complaint.  The OP further submits that they have to give the phone, the complainant have to pay additional charges for that facility.  

          8)   The complainant furnished the tax invoice of Rs.10,198/-, in which there are some terms and conditions.  In below there are two signatures i.e., one is of or seller another is of the receiver or customer.   In the back of the bill there are three advertisements, one is for price drop for 30 days, another is for phone damage for 365 days and theft protection for 365 days.  Here in this case the cell has lost and in this advertisement, 365 days theft protection Phone stolen? New phone at 50% has been mentioned and nothing else has been shown in this receipt. For all those terms and conditions visit www.sangeetamobile.come, but in the advertisement not shown any additional charges for that facilities and further there is no any sign or picture to say that this advertisement is subject to terms and conditions, merely publishing visit to the website, a layman cannot understand simply.  Such being the fact, a common person and even a senior citizen cannot look after keenly and even the shop keepers have not informed the complainant properly about the terms and conditions i.e., if the complainant avail  the theft protection policy, he should have to pay additional amount. It is clear that Company made unfair trade practice by showing attractive advertisement to the customer.  Hence Forum came to the conclusion that the OPs are liable to the same.  Hence we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative and the Point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

9.POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on above points, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

 

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. OP is directed to give a new set of same model to the complainant by receiving half of the price.
3. Further OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
4. Further OP is directed to comply this order within 30 days, failing which OP is liable to give the set with free of cost.
5. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost. 

     (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and  then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the day of 8^th February, 2019)

                           

 

      (Shri B.S.Keri)                                 (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

         Member                                                          President