Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2021/2008

B.Savitha Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

ESSEM Communications, - Opp.Party(s)

IP

31 Oct 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2021/2008

B.Savitha Nayak
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

PICK 'N' Speak
ESSEM Communications,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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

Date of Filing:15.09.2008 Date of Order:31.10.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2021 OF 2008 B. Savitha Nayak 1393, 1st Cross, 18th Main Phase – 2, J.P. Nagar Bangalore 560 078 Complainant V/S 1. ESSEM Communications 91 & 92, Hemachandra Complex 7th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar Bangalore 560 011 2. Pick ‘N’ Speak No. 16, K.H. Road (Double Road) Next to Canara Bank Bangalore 560 027 Opposite Parties ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking refund of cost of mobile handset Rs. 13,900/-. The case of the complainant is that she has purchased Motorola ROCKR-E8 mobile handset for Rs. 13,900/- on 28.06.2008. Within 2 weeks she faced problem with the handset. Opposite party made a temporary fix and returned to him. After 10 days the problem occurred again. On 18.08.2008 service centre recognized a major defect requiring the replacement of mother board in the handset. Accordingly, work order was raised. She was told that they require six working days to rectify the defect. Even after nearly one month she does not know the status. Some times she was told that set was in Chennai and some time they have received it. Therefore, the complainant sought refund of purchase cost. 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Notice was served by RPAD. In spite of service of notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not appeared before this forum. They have not sent defence version by post also. No body represented on behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore, opposite parties placed as ex-parte. 3. Matter was heard. Perused the complaint and documents. 4. The complainant has produced cash receipt issued by the opposite party No. 2. Cash receipt is dated 28.06.2008. This is for Rs. 13,900/-. She has also produced customer receipt for work order. The request made out by the complainant had gone unchallenged. There is no defence version. The complainant faced problem with the handset. As per her case the handset was not working properly. Problem was not sorted out. There was a major defect requiring replacement of mother board. She has surrendered the set under customer receipt dated 18.08.2008. Even after one month she does not know the status and she had not received the handset. Under these circumstances she has sought refund of amount paid by her. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation enacted by the Parliament of India. The Act intends to protect the better interests of consumers. Complainant has paid Rs. 13,900/- for purchasing mobile handset. But, to her shock and dis-advantage she got handset having defect. Therefore, she was really dis-appointed. A consumer who had purchased the thing by paying amount should be satisfied with the thing purchased. It is the duty of the service provider or the manufacturer or the Company to supply the goods which were defect free. But, in this case the new hand set purchased by the complainant began to give technical problems and was not working properly. Therefore, it amounts to mental agony, tension and hardship. Therefore, complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid by her. In this case the opposite parties shall be directed to refund Rs. 13,900/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 13,900/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. 6. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount to the complainant directly by way of D.D./ cheque with intimation to this forum within 30 days. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER