Harish Manager V/S B.S. Keshav - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2570

B.S. Keshav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harish Manager - Opp.Party(s)

In person

09 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/08/2570

B.S. Keshav						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Harish Manager						...........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: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 09th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2570/2008 COMPLAINANT B.S. Keshav, 60-C1, MIG, 4th Phase, Yelahanka Newtown, Bangalore 560 064. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. Ravi, Manager, Royal Services, (Franchise of IFB Industries Ltd.,) No. 108, 9th Cross, 1st Main, Pampa Extension, Kempapura, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024. 2. Mr. Harish, Manager, (Home Appliances Division) No. 17, Vishwehwaraiah Industrial Estate, Off. White Field Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore 560 048. 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 nearly Rs.2,000/- 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 availed the services of the OP in getting repair his IFB M/C. OP claimed an estimation of Rs.2,376/- for rectify the said defect and took the said machine to their shop on 29.07.2008, but thereafter inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither repaired the said machine nor returned it. On the other hand went on making demand of the cost of the replaced parts. Even the parts which OP proposed to replace were not possessing IFB acceptance mark. Though OP attended to the said defect, but again there was a profuse leakage. Complainant though invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. He made correspondence with the OP, it went in vain. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. Though OP.1 is duly served with a notice, he remained absent without any substantial reason or cause, hence OP.1 is placed ex-parte. On appearance, OP.2 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.2 there is no privity of contract of any kind between the complainant and OP.2. As such OP.2 is not liable to pay compensation. Complainant handed over the machine to OP.1, the entire transaction is taken place between the complainant and OP.1. Under such circumstances OP.2 is not a necessary party at all. Though complainant issued certain amount by way of cheque to OP.1, thereafter complainant intimated his banker to stop payment. So the real dispute is between the complainant and OP.1. The other allegations made against OP.2 are bald. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. 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.2 has also filed the affidavit evidence. 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 handed over his IFB washing machine to OP.1 for repairs on 29.07.2008. Thereafter it appears OP.1 on one or the other reason failed to repair as promised, though collected the service charges from the complainant. Complainant felt the mischief played by OP.1, hence he lodged complaint to the Yelahanka New Town Police Station. OP.1 is obliged to repair the said machine because it is within warranty period. With all that he started demanding the hidden charges alleging the replacement of certain spare parts. Though complainant was ready to pay the said amount the spare parts which OP wanted to replace are not IFB accepted mark. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that though OP.1 attended to some defects it was not perfect, within a short period again there was a profuse leakage. Though complainant paid all the repair charges, OP.1 is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. He was made to move from pillar to post on several occasions. Due to the hostile attitude of OP.1 complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP.1 leads us to draw an inference that it admits all the allegations made by the complainant. 8. Of course there is no privity of contract between OP.2 and the complainant. What made the complainant to prosecute the OP.2 is not known. As already observed by us, all the transaction has taken place between the complainant and OP.1. There is no role to play by OP.2. It is also not at dispute that the complainant issued one cheque to OP.1 towards the repair charges, later on he sent instructions to Bank to stop payment. If that is so, OP.1 would have challenged the same. The fact that complainant filed a police complaint against OP.1 for cheating is also not at dispute. 9. Viewed from any angle, complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service against OP.2. On the other hand he is able to establish the same against OP.1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With 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.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The complaint against OP.2 is dismissed. 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 09th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 09th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2570/2008 COMPLAINANT B.S. Keshav, 60-C1, MIG, 4th Phase, Yelahanka Newtown, Bangalore 560 064. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. Ravi, Manager, Royal Services, (Franchise of IFB Industries Ltd.,) No. 108, 9th Cross, 1st Main, Pampa Extension, Kempapura, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 024. 2. Mr. Harish, Manager, (Home Appliances Division) No. 17, Vishwehwaraiah Industrial Estate, Off. White Field Road, Mahadevapura Post, Bangalore 560 048. 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 nearly Rs.2,000/- 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 availed the services of the OP in getting repair his IFB M/C. OP claimed an estimation of Rs.2,376/- for rectify the said defect and took the said machine to their shop on 29.07.2008, but thereafter inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP neither repaired the said machine nor returned it. On the other hand went on making demand of the cost of the replaced parts. Even the parts which OP proposed to replace were not possessing IFB acceptance mark. Though OP attended to the said defect, but again there was a profuse leakage. Complainant though invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. He made correspondence with the OP, it went in vain. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. Though OP.1 is duly served with a notice, he remained absent without any substantial reason or cause, hence OP.1 is placed ex-parte. On appearance, OP.2 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.2 there is no privity of contract of any kind between the complainant and OP.2. As such OP.2 is not liable to pay compensation. Complainant handed over the machine to OP.1, the entire transaction is taken place between the complainant and OP.1. Under such circumstances OP.2 is not a necessary party at all. Though complainant issued certain amount by way of cheque to OP.1, thereafter complainant intimated his banker to stop payment. So the real dispute is between the complainant and OP.1. The other allegations made against OP.2 are bald. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.2. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. 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.2 has also filed the affidavit evidence. 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 handed over his IFB washing machine to OP.1 for repairs on 29.07.2008. Thereafter it appears OP.1 on one or the other reason failed to repair as promised, though collected the service charges from the complainant. Complainant felt the mischief played by OP.1, hence he lodged complaint to the Yelahanka New Town Police Station. OP.1 is obliged to repair the said machine because it is within warranty period. With all that he started demanding the hidden charges alleging the replacement of certain spare parts. Though complainant was ready to pay the said amount the spare parts which OP wanted to replace are not IFB accepted mark. 7. It is further contended by the complainant that though OP.1 attended to some defects it was not perfect, within a short period again there was a profuse leakage. Though complainant paid all the repair charges, OP.1 is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. He was made to move from pillar to post on several occasions. Due to the hostile attitude of OP.1 complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-appearance of the OP.1 leads us to draw an inference that it admits all the allegations made by the complainant. 8. Of course there is no privity of contract between OP.2 and the complainant. What made the complainant to prosecute the OP.2 is not known. As already observed by us, all the transaction has taken place between the complainant and OP.1. There is no role to play by OP.2. It is also not at dispute that the complainant issued one cheque to OP.1 towards the repair charges, later on he sent instructions to Bank to stop payment. If that is so, OP.1 would have challenged the same. The fact that complainant filed a police complaint against OP.1 for cheating is also not at dispute. 9. Viewed from any angle, complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service against OP.2. On the other hand he is able to establish the same against OP.1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With 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.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. The complaint against OP.2 is dismissed. 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 09th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.