Date of Filing:13.01.2010<br /> Date of Order:18.03.2010<br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 18th DAY OF MARCH 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 80 OF 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.RAnjankumar,<br /> S/o Ramanjeneyalu<br /> Aged about 29 yrs,<br /> R/o No.224, Mahalingenshwara Layout,<br /> Hosur Main Road, Adugoid,<br /> Bangalore – 30.<br /> Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 01. Customer care,<br /> Meridian Mobile Pvt Ltd.,<br /> 100, OKHLA Industrial Area,<br /> Phase – III, NEW DELHI – 110019.<br /> Rep by its Manager(Deleted)<br /> <br /> 02. V.Mobiles ltd.,<br /> No.12, Near Ayyappa Swamy Temple<br /> Madiwala, Bangalore – 560 068.<br /> Reptd by its Manager,<br /> <br /> 03. Rranav Infocom,<br /> No.94, 7th Main, 4th Block,<br /> Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011<br /> Repted by its Manager.<br /> Opposite Parties <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 2. The facts of the case are that on 18/10/2009 the complainant has purchased mobile set from Opposite Party No.2 on payment of Rs.1,800/-. Copy of bill is produced. Within a week of purchase of the mobile, the complainant observed that set was defective and it was not getting charged properly and asked for replacement with a new set. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Party No.3 given job sheet. Opposite Party No.3 unnecessarily made to waste time of the complainant. In spite of repairs, the problem remained. On 12/11/2009 set was again collected by Opposite Party No.3 under job sheet. Unfortunately till today there is no proper response by the Opposite Party No.3. The opposite Party No.3 is not responded properly to the complainant and behaving in a rude manner and postponing the matter on one or the other reason. The complainant has lost confidence. The complainant is deeply pained by the manner in which he was treated and deeply pained by poor and strange attitude towards customers. There is a deliberate deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Left with no other alternative relief, the complainant has presented this present complaint. Hence, the complainant prayed for direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the set along with compensation. <br /> 3. Notice was sent to Opposite Party on the payment of complainant. Notice was served on the Opposite Parties. Postal acknowledgment received. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Parties have not appeared before this Forum. When the case was set for their appearance, Opposite Party No.1 was deleted from the cause title. The case put up by the complainant has not been challenged. There is no contrary case or defence by the Opposite Parties.<br /> 4. The complainant has produced cash receipt of Opposite Party No.2. From this receipt it is very clear that the complainant has purchased FLY DS -100 for Rs.2,000/- with the Opposite Party. He has also produced job sheet of Opposite Party No.3. From this job sheet, it is very clear that there is charging problem with the mobile set. It is unfortunate that the complainant who had purchased the new mobile set has to suffer inconvenience, mental agony and harassment. The set found to be defective soon after purchase and he requested the Opposite Party for replacement with new set. The Opposite Parties have not responded properly and they have not given proper response to the complaint of the complainant. This kind of attitude on the part of service provider is not proper. Any complaints of the customer should be attended properly and the matter should be set-right without giving any scope for the customers to file the complaint. Consumer Protection Act is a Social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. A consumer is the most important visitor to the premises of the service provider. He is not dependent on the service provider. On the other hand, the service providers are dependent on him. The complainant being a Consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, his interest will be protected by passing suitable orders. In this case, the case set up by the complainant deserves to be accepted and the relief asked by him shall be granted. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1) The complaint is allowed. <br /> 2) The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.2,000/- - the cost of the mobile set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of this order within 30 days, the said amount carries interest at 9% Per Annum form the date of this order till payment. <br /> 3) The complainant is also entitled to Rs.500/- as costs of the present petition from the Opposite Parties. <br /> 4) Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 5) Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER