COMPLAINTS FILED ON:22.02.2012
DISPOSED ON:26.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
26TH DAY OF APRIL-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.383/2012
ComplainantS | Makal Shivalingappa, # 208, Royal Lake Front Residency 2nd Phase, Kothnur Post, JP Nagar 8th Phase, Bangalore-560 076. 9845004552 In person. V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | CROMA, Royal Meenakshi Mall, Opposite Meenakshi Temple, Unit/Anchor No.1, Bannerghatta Road, Bangaloe-560 076, Ph:6703 9130. Placed Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount paid for purchase of MP3/MP4 player and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. In spite of service of notice, Op failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence.
4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that the wife of the complainant Mrs.Veena had been to OP on 13th February to purchase MP3/MP4 Player and she had mentioned to the salesman about voice recording feature as a mandatory requirement. She bought Sony MP4 player by paying an amount of Rs.8,994/-. The copy of the invoice produced reveals that an amount of Rs.8,994/- has been paid for the purchase of Sony MP4 Player. After the system was purchased on the next day when it was opened they found no voice recording feature available in the system and they called up toll free number to inform the same and they said will ask OP Sales to call them back in 2 hours time. The wife of the complainant got a call from OP Bannerghatta Road Branch and discussed this issue with them and they told to come for a replacement. The complainant had been to OP on 15th Feb 2012 for the replacement and he handed over the system to OP. OP has issued the acknowledgement and explored the other systems for the replacement. As it could not get the exact system as he was looking for, OP asked him to come on 16th February 2012 as they wanted to discuss with the wife of the complainant once again on the exact conversation that had taken place with the Salesman on 13th February 2012. On 16.02.2012 again the complainant had been to OP hoping for either a good product as a replacement or money reimbursement. OP again started showing the same limited systems which the complainant did not like. As none of the systems were matching with his requirement the complainant asked OP to reimburse the money for which they said it cannot be done and they were forcing the complainant to get for any of the available product or Ipad by paying extra money. The complainant did not want to pay more for the same features for Ipad. OP rejected reimbursement request and the complainant wasted his valuable time visiting OP for 2 days along with his multiple calls to Croma call center. Thus the complainant felt deficiency in service and sought for refund of the amount with compensation.
6. OP supplied the MP4 system by collecting an amount of Rs.8,994/- but the same was not as per the requirement of the complainant’s wife which she wanted voice recording feature. There are no other product for replacement and the complainant did not like to take any other product. When that being so OP ought to have refunded the amount received. There is no voice recording feature in the system which was specifically asked for while purchasing the same. Thus we are of the view that OP has not supplied the system as per requirement of the complainant’s wife and even when the system was not as per requirements, OP has failed to refund the amount. The act of OP in supplying the system without voice recording feature is nothing but unfair trade practice. Further the system has been received by OP by issuing the acknowledgment when other product for replacement was not liked by the complainants, the amount should have been refunded. Thus no-refunding of the amount, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
7. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.8,994/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,994/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of APRIL-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
