CC No.1642/2014

Filed on 17.09.2014

Disposed on 04.01.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1642/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

              PRESIDENT

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

                                 MEMBER

                                          V/S

ORDER

BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant. 
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant states that Sahara Prime City Limited engaged the services of the Opposite Party M/s United Office Solutions, for the supply of HP toner Cartridge, HP INK Cartridge for office purposes of the Complainant for a period of three years.  The Opposite Party were also collecting the original rate of HP Company.  The Complainant also believed that the Opposite Party was supplying he genuine HP Toner Cartridge, HP Ink Cartridge and collecting the original rate of HP Company for having supplied the same.  The Complainant was getting HP Toner Cartridge, HP Ink Cartridge through the Opposite Party since July, 2013 by various invoices in different dates in bulk.  The Complainant had also received the same in good faith that the Opposite Party was supplying the genuine HP Toner Cartridge, HP Ink Cartridge.   Since there was a complaint with regard to the HP Toner Cartridge, HP Ink Cartridge supplied by the Opposite Party, the Complainant requested the HP Company to replace HP Toner Cartridge, HP Ink Cartridge toner immediately.  The HP Company after verification rejected the request of the Complainant for the reason that HP Toner Cartridge, HP Ink Cartridge found to be Non HP original.  The Complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the Opposite Party has supplied duplicate toner as if HP Toner bearing sticker as HP Company.  The Complainant also engaged the services of the expert to find out that the items supplied by the Opposite Party are genuine toner of the HP Company or not. The expert after verifying he items supplied by the Opposite Party have also given an opinion that the items supplied by the Opposite Party are duplicate and not the genuine toner of the HP Company.  But the Opposite Party is collecting the original rate of HP Company.  The Opposite Party has played a fertile fraud on the Complainant and thereby caused a huge loss to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party has supplied Duplicate Toner to the Complainant as if it is the Toner of HP Company. The Opposite Party though collected original rate of HP Company has supplied duplicate toner to the Complainant.  Thereby the Opposite Party has rendered deficiency of service and thereby the Complainant has undergone mental agony. On coming to know that the items supplied by the Opposite Party are duplicate issued a notice dt.15.05.2014 calling upon the Opposite Party not to supply the duplicate toner but the same has gone in vain although the Complainant has not stopped outstanding dues to the Opposite Party.  Even after the issuance of the notice the Opposite Party is in the habit of supplying the duplicate tone. Finally the Complainant consulted the HP and requested them to inspect the premises and find out the product supplied byte hop as to whether the product supplied by the Opposite Party is the original toner of the HP Company.

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 complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. The Complainant had filed written arguments.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party?
2. 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 during first week of December 2015 Complainant approached the Opposite Party to do certain works related to tinkering and painting of his vehicle Maruthi Esteem KA01M5447.  The Complainant handed over the said vehicle to Opposite Party for said works.  The Opposite Party assured to deliver the vehicle within 15 days i.e., on or before 22.12.2015 and charged Rs.15,000/- for said work. The Complainant made several reminders, both telephonically and by personal visit, the Opposite Party never attended till February first week of 2016 only tinkering work was done, leaving the vehicle at one corner of the garage.  The number plate, monograms, indicator lights, petrol pipes, were damaged due to the wrong use/parking of the vehicle and attack by rodents i.e., rats. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed his affidavit, in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and also in support of his sworn testimony, he produced the copy of the cheque.  By looking into these documents, it clearly shows that the Complainant had paid Rs.7,500/-by way of cheque bearing No.432724 drawn on State Bank of India dt.09.02.2014.  The Complainant visited several time.  But the Opposite Party never bothered to do the work.  After the intervention of local police.  The Opposite Party agreed to make the car ready with painting rubbing polishing and electrical works which were damaged due to long stay in the garage and being attacked by rats, and deliver in running condition within a weeks’ time.  The Complainant paid balance amount.  The Opposite Party agreed to deliver the vehicle on or before 22.02.2016.  But did not deliver the vehicle as promised.  The evidence also remains unchallenged.  The Complainant issued a Legal Notice dt.26.02.2016 to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party neither replied the notice nor fulfilled the demand of the Complainant.  If at all the Opposite Party has delivered the vehicle with completing all mechanical works as assured by him ought to have produced relevant evidence.  But there is no such evidence.  Therefore this act on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency of service.   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 by the Opposite Party. 

The Opposite Party is directed to deliver the vehicle in running condition to the Complainant. 

The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for the mental agony.

The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

The Opposite Party is granted 30 days’ time from this date to comply 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, 25^th day of January 2017)

        MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Dr.S.K.Guharoy, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:

1. Legal Notice dt.22.02.2016
2. Professional Courier receipt
3. Estimate/Quotation
4. Cash Bill
5. Rajendra Automobiles Estimate
6. State Bank of India Cheque
7. Registration Certificate Form

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

                                    -NIL-

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                          -NIL-

 MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT