D' Souza, V/S Gopal - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2544

Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

D' Souza, - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Feb 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2544

Gopal						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
D' Souza,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 05th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2544/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Gopal (M.K. Gopala Krishna) S/o. Late. Kempe Gowda, Aged about 67 years, Residing at No. 25/41, 3rd Main, 29th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 82. Advocate (Satish) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Dsouza, Prop. Sky Power Solution, No. 112, Ullal, Basti, Ullal, Bangalore 560 056. Advocate (Mohan .S) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.54,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant has purchased UPS 1.5 KVA with 12 volts battery from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- on 25.07.2008. The said UPS and battery covered one year warranty. After the installation of the said UPS within a span of 2 months it stopped working, batteries were not working properly. Immediately he contacted the OP, OP came to his place and took the defective batteries with a promise replace them within 3-4 days. But thereafter somehow inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither replaced the said batteries nor attended to the defect found in the UPS. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not made payment. It is only an invoice that is given to the complainant. He received the UPS and the batteries. When OP insisted the complainant to make payment and the cost of the said batteries he has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. At no point of time OP has taken the said two batteries for replacement. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. The allegations are false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one UPS of 1.5 KVA with 12 volts batteries two in number from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- on 25.07.2008 and it carried one year warranty. An invoice issued by the OP in that regard is produced. According to the complainant within a span of 2 months UPS started giving trouble and it was not functioning as per expectation, batteries have dried up. He immediately contacted the OP, OP visited his premises, examined the battery, admitted the defect in the battery and took two batteries with a promise to replace them within 2-3 days. But thereafter inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant OP failed to replace the said batteries, as such he is unable to use the UPS for the purpose for which he purchased it. Thus he felt the deficiency in service. 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent, which finds support from the contents of the document. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that though he supplied the said UPS batteries to the complainant under invoice complainant has not made payment of Rs.24,000/-. This defence appears to be very strange. No prudent businessmen will supply the UPS with batteries that too worth of Rs.24,000/- without receiving the payment. If the complainant has not made payment of the same, what is the step OP has taken to recover the said amount for all these months is not known. Under such circumstances the defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to shirk his responsibility. The very defence of the OP leads us to draw an inference that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to earn his livelihood by using the said UPS, but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the non-functioning of the UPS for want of proper batteries. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss, that too for no fault of his. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the cost of Rs.24,000/- and take back the defective UPS, as the batteries are already received by the OP. For these reasons we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.24,000/- the cost of the UPS and batteries and take back the defective UPS. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be compiled within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. In default of refund of the said Rs.24,000/- as ordered in time, complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9%p.a. on Rs.24,000/- from August 2008 till realization and also for a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 25.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 05th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2544/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Gopal (M.K. Gopala Krishna) S/o. Late. Kempe Gowda, Aged about 67 years, Residing at No. 25/41, 3rd Main, 29th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 82. Advocate (Satish) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Dsouza, Prop. Sky Power Solution, No. 112, Ullal, Basti, Ullal, Bangalore 560 056. Advocate (Mohan .S) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.54,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant has purchased UPS 1.5 KVA with 12 volts battery from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- on 25.07.2008. The said UPS and battery covered one year warranty. After the installation of the said UPS within a span of 2 months it stopped working, batteries were not working properly. Immediately he contacted the OP, OP came to his place and took the defective batteries with a promise replace them within 3-4 days. But thereafter somehow inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither replaced the said batteries nor attended to the defect found in the UPS. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not made payment. It is only an invoice that is given to the complainant. He received the UPS and the batteries. When OP insisted the complainant to make payment and the cost of the said batteries he has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. At no point of time OP has taken the said two batteries for replacement. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. The allegations are false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one UPS of 1.5 KVA with 12 volts batteries two in number from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.24,000/- on 25.07.2008 and it carried one year warranty. An invoice issued by the OP in that regard is produced. According to the complainant within a span of 2 months UPS started giving trouble and it was not functioning as per expectation, batteries have dried up. He immediately contacted the OP, OP visited his premises, examined the battery, admitted the defect in the battery and took two batteries with a promise to replace them within 2-3 days. But thereafter inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant OP failed to replace the said batteries, as such he is unable to use the UPS for the purpose for which he purchased it. Thus he felt the deficiency in service. 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent, which finds support from the contents of the document. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that though he supplied the said UPS batteries to the complainant under invoice complainant has not made payment of Rs.24,000/-. This defence appears to be very strange. No prudent businessmen will supply the UPS with batteries that too worth of Rs.24,000/- without receiving the payment. If the complainant has not made payment of the same, what is the step OP has taken to recover the said amount for all these months is not known. Under such circumstances the defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to shirk his responsibility. The very defence of the OP leads us to draw an inference that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. Though complainant invested his hard earned money to earn his livelihood by using the said UPS, but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the non-functioning of the UPS for want of proper batteries. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss, that too for no fault of his. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund the cost of Rs.24,000/- and take back the defective UPS, as the batteries are already received by the OP. For these reasons we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.24,000/- the cost of the UPS and batteries and take back the defective UPS. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be compiled within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. In default of refund of the said Rs.24,000/- as ordered in time, complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9%p.a. on Rs.24,000/- from August 2008 till realization and also for a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.