G parivar V/S K V Lokesh - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2835

K V Lokesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

G parivar - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 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/08/2835

K V Lokesh						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
G parivar						...........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: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2835/2008 COMPLAINANT K.V. Lokesh, S/o. Venkatswamy, No. 1161, 18th C Main, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate (Janekere C Krishna) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY G. Parivar, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. Chandrasheker.V. Angadi, Bhavani Arcade, Opp. Basava Vana Old Bus Stand Road, Hubli. Also at No. 323/4, 3rd Floor, No. 204, 2nd Floor, Arenja, Vashi, Navimumbai. Advocate (C.S. Surya Kanth) 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 refund Rs.8,500/- and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be the experts in consultation with vasthu, thought of taking assistance from OP with regard to the house which he built. OP agreed to extend the help and will solve the problems which complainant faced by way of saral vasthu concept. Towards the registration OP received Rs.500/- and for consultation OP claimed Rs.13,000/-. As complainant felt it expensive he did not show his inclination, but thereafter OP came down to Rs.8,000/-, then complainant paid Rs.5,00/- registered himself and paid Rs.8,000/- on 20.08.2008. OP assistant came to his house and gave some gadgets with other material, informed him to fix up the same in the conspicuous part of the house and the positive results will come within 15 days. Though complainant waited for more than a month or two he could not get any favourable result, his problems were not solved. Thus he felt that he has been duped by the OP. Then got issued the notice on 07.11.2008, there was no response. Complainant felt the deficiency in service. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances 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. Under saral vasthu concept complainant is required to wait for 180 days to get positive result. Complainant has not complied the said obligation. Seeking vasthu assistance will not come under the purview of service as defined under the Act because complainant cannot claim himself as a Consumer. The result of the said vasthu concept depends upon various happenings including that of luck and belief. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. Complainant himself failed to follow the instructions given by the OP. There is no fault lies with the OP. Complainant ought to have waited for 180 days, but he made hurry in filing this pre-mature complaint and removed the gadgets from the places where they are originally fixed by the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay either compensation or refund the fees paid. The complaint is devoid of merits. 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 some 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. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed saral vasthu concept service from OP and he paid Rs.500/- towards registration and towards the service he paid Rs.8,000/-. It is also not at dispute that OP agent came to the complainants house on 20.08.2008 gave some gadgets and a cover containing certain articles with a instructions to fix them in the conspicuous places of the said house, complainant did comply the same. According to the complainant OP promised that he will get positive result within 15 days. But to his utter shock and surprise, though he waited for more than 2 months he could not get any solution which he has faced. Thus complainant felt that OP has duped him. Under the circumstances he gave notice to the OP. The notice copy is produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. On the perusal of the brochures, other relevant documents complainant is expected to wait for the positive results for 6 months from the date of fixing of the said gadgets and other articles in the said house. On going through the complaint, complainant filed this complaint within 4 months from the date of fixing of the said gadgets. Under such circumstances we find there is some substance in the defence of the OP that complainant has to wait for the result for 6 months as noted in their brochure. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, even complainant was to get a positive result atleast it would have been began some symptoms and some changes in his personal life and problems. But no such changes he has noticed. Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely, that too for 6 months if really that saral vasthu to work on his problem. 8. Of course OP has contended that complainant has not availed their service as defined under section 2 (o) of the Act. We do not find force in the said defence because it has not limited and other information is also covered. Complainant availed the service of the OP by registering himself and paid Rs.500/-, then Rs.8,000/- towards the saral vasthu concept service. When we go through the defence set out by the OP it shows that the vasthu consultancy is completely based on assumptions and presumptions. The happenings of the event may or may not happen and also varies from person to person according to his luck and belief. That means to say it is fluctuating not a definite relief. This kind of defence of the OP itself, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. If they are not sure of providing the proper assistance for the money that they have received then they would not have given such a paper publication to solve the problems under saral vasthu concept. The hostile attitude of the OP must have caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. 9. Though it is much contended by the OP that complainant failed to follow the instructions. For this defence also there is no basis. The fact that if no results are seen, then the amount collected will be returned is not at dispute. It is also printed in the pamphlet. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove that he could not get the positive results under the said sarala vasthu concept. When it is brought to the notice of the OP by issuing the notice, with all fairness OP would have accepted its obligations and would have refunded the amount as promised, but no such steps are taken. Here also we find the deficiency in service. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.7,000/- with some litigation cost. For these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.7,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 11th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2835/2008 COMPLAINANT K.V. Lokesh, S/o. Venkatswamy, No. 1161, 18th C Main, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate (Janekere C Krishna) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY G. Parivar, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. Chandrasheker.V. Angadi, Bhavani Arcade, Opp. Basava Vana Old Bus Stand Road, Hubli. Also at No. 323/4, 3rd Floor, No. 204, 2nd Floor, Arenja, Vashi, Navimumbai. Advocate (C.S. Surya Kanth) 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 refund Rs.8,500/- and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who claims to be the experts in consultation with vasthu, thought of taking assistance from OP with regard to the house which he built. OP agreed to extend the help and will solve the problems which complainant faced by way of saral vasthu concept. Towards the registration OP received Rs.500/- and for consultation OP claimed Rs.13,000/-. As complainant felt it expensive he did not show his inclination, but thereafter OP came down to Rs.8,000/-, then complainant paid Rs.5,00/- registered himself and paid Rs.8,000/- on 20.08.2008. OP assistant came to his house and gave some gadgets with other material, informed him to fix up the same in the conspicuous part of the house and the positive results will come within 15 days. Though complainant waited for more than a month or two he could not get any favourable result, his problems were not solved. Thus he felt that he has been duped by the OP. Then got issued the notice on 07.11.2008, there was no response. Complainant felt the deficiency in service. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances 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. Under saral vasthu concept complainant is required to wait for 180 days to get positive result. Complainant has not complied the said obligation. Seeking vasthu assistance will not come under the purview of service as defined under the Act because complainant cannot claim himself as a Consumer. The result of the said vasthu concept depends upon various happenings including that of luck and belief. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. Complainant himself failed to follow the instructions given by the OP. There is no fault lies with the OP. Complainant ought to have waited for 180 days, but he made hurry in filing this pre-mature complaint and removed the gadgets from the places where they are originally fixed by the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay either compensation or refund the fees paid. The complaint is devoid of merits. 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 some 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. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed saral vasthu concept service from OP and he paid Rs.500/- towards registration and towards the service he paid Rs.8,000/-. It is also not at dispute that OP agent came to the complainants house on 20.08.2008 gave some gadgets and a cover containing certain articles with a instructions to fix them in the conspicuous places of the said house, complainant did comply the same. According to the complainant OP promised that he will get positive result within 15 days. But to his utter shock and surprise, though he waited for more than 2 months he could not get any solution which he has faced. Thus complainant felt that OP has duped him. Under the circumstances he gave notice to the OP. The notice copy is produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. On the perusal of the brochures, other relevant documents complainant is expected to wait for the positive results for 6 months from the date of fixing of the said gadgets and other articles in the said house. On going through the complaint, complainant filed this complaint within 4 months from the date of fixing of the said gadgets. Under such circumstances we find there is some substance in the defence of the OP that complainant has to wait for the result for 6 months as noted in their brochure. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, even complainant was to get a positive result atleast it would have been began some symptoms and some changes in his personal life and problems. But no such changes he has noticed. Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely, that too for 6 months if really that saral vasthu to work on his problem. 8. Of course OP has contended that complainant has not availed their service as defined under section 2 (o) of the Act. We do not find force in the said defence because it has not limited and other information is also covered. Complainant availed the service of the OP by registering himself and paid Rs.500/-, then Rs.8,000/- towards the saral vasthu concept service. When we go through the defence set out by the OP it shows that the vasthu consultancy is completely based on assumptions and presumptions. The happenings of the event may or may not happen and also varies from person to person according to his luck and belief. That means to say it is fluctuating not a definite relief. This kind of defence of the OP itself, in our view amounts to deficiency in service. If they are not sure of providing the proper assistance for the money that they have received then they would not have given such a paper publication to solve the problems under saral vasthu concept. The hostile attitude of the OP must have caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. 9. Though it is much contended by the OP that complainant failed to follow the instructions. For this defence also there is no basis. The fact that if no results are seen, then the amount collected will be returned is not at dispute. It is also printed in the pamphlet. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove that he could not get the positive results under the said sarala vasthu concept. When it is brought to the notice of the OP by issuing the notice, with all fairness OP would have accepted its obligations and would have refunded the amount as promised, but no such steps are taken. Here also we find the deficiency in service. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.7,000/- with some litigation cost. For these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.7,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 11th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.