BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 29/2013.
THIS THE 26th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath, M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- C. Kesava Rao, Advocate, Age:58 years,
H.No. 1-12-73, Daddy Colony, Raichur-
584101.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- AIR INFOTEC, 905, 906, Satyam Apartments,
Vardha Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012.
Date of institution :- 29-04-2013.
Date of disposal :- 26-12-2013.
Complainant in person.
Respondent is Ex-parte.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant purchased AIR CD of the judgments of the Supreme Court from 1950 from the Respondent by paying one time cost and thereafter he has been tendering the renewal cost for updating each year’s judgments to the Respondent under the buy back policy. The Respondent has to inform the customers every year the cost of the update of each year. But the Respondent failed to inform the same to the complainant. Likewise they failed to inform the complainant about the renewal charges of the CD for the year 2013 though they received Rs.20,000/- in lumpsum through its agent. The complainant after having waited anxiously till March 2013 for the communication from the Respondent and as there was no message from them he enquired over phone and remitted Rs.5,000/- by cheque of HDFC Bank, Raichur to the Respondent. But it failed to send the latest CD for the year 2013. The enquiry made in this regard became futile. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Therefore the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. On service of notice the Respondent remained absent and was placed Ex-parte.
4. The complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on three documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3.
5. Arguments heard on complainant’s side.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
7. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) Partly in the affirmative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. As the Respondent is Ex-parte and having not challenged the case of the complainant by filing written version and by producing the evidence, there is no challenge to the case of the complainant.
9. As per the submissions of the complainant after filing of this complaint the Respondent had sent the latest CD of the Supreme Court judgments for the year 2013. However not sending the said CD in time by the Respondent amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Respondent, he is entitled for compensation for the same and under the circumstances of this case granting of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- along with cost of the proceedings would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:-
11. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 2,000/- from Respondent towards deficiency in service.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the Respondent.
Respondent is given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amounts.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-12-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
