Karnataka

Kolar

CC/47/2017

Sri.N.Muneer Ahmed s/o Late P.Nazeer Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

Insasta Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 15/06/2017

Date of Order: 03/10/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 03^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.47 OF 2017

Sri. N.Muneer Ahmed,

S/o. Late P. Nazeer Ahmed,

K.K. Pete, Near T.M. Hospitel,

Shidlaghatta,

Chikkaballapura District.                              ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s -

Insasta Enterprises,

Office 111, 1^st Floor, Building P.1,

Above Apsara Restaurant Valgaon,

Bhiwandi, Mumbai-421 302.

 

(Exparte)                                                       …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint in-person, hence it is taken read as Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the Act”) against the opposite party has sought issuance of directions to make payment of Rs.60,000/- towards loss and mental agony and the courier charges he had paid.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, on 09.03.2017 he had purchased Huawei ETS 5623 Walky Phone from the OP through online invoice bearing No.INV-2016-004670, Order ID: 6635 for a sum of Rs.944/- which includes shipping charges also.  Further it is the case of the complainant that, on 20.03.2017 he had received the same through courier.  While he opened the courier box, he found that, the said phone was not working.  The same was complained to the OP through phone and they replied to return the same and within 15 days they will send a new one.  Though complainant waited for 15 days, they did not bother to send new one nor gave any reply also.  Further he had approached the OP through e-mail and issued reminder letter.  For that also there could be no reply from the OP side.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

(b)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following documents:-

(i) Copy of Tax Invoice dated: 09.03.2017

(ii) Track your complaint copy

(iii) Copy of e-mails 04 in numbers

(iv) Copy of Reminder Letter

(v) Copy of Daily Delivery Runsheet issued by Professional Couriers

(vi) Copies of 02 receipts issued by Professional courier

 

03.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet OP placed exparte, since pleadings, affidavit, documents of the complainant remained un-opposed the same are bound to prevail. 

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence. 

 

05.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A)  Whether the inaction of the OP would amount to deficiency in service?

(B) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

(C)  What order?

 

06.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Affirmative

 

POINT (C):               As per final order for

the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

 

07.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do deserve common course of discussion the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

(a)    As the pleadings, affidavit evidence, documents of the complainant remained un-opposed by the OP, since served with the notice of this Forum the same are considered to be genuine.  The tax invoice bearing No.INV-2016-004670, Order ID: 6635, dated: 09.03.2017 clearly reveals that, the purchase of GSM SIM card based Wireless Phone Huawei ETS 5623 Walky Phone for a sum of Rs.944/- from the OP.  The documents such as e-mail transactions and reminder letter submitted by the complainant shows that, the complainant had approached OP through online for several times in this regard, but the OP remained silent without taking any action in correction of the said phone nor giving the new one.  This clears that, the OP has rendered deficiency in service.  The Delivery Sheet issued by the Professional Courier, Kolar, and the acknowledgment made on the same clearly shows that, the complainant had returned the said phone to the OP.  Hence we come to conclusion that, the OP has rendered deficiency in service.

 

POINT (C)

08.   Hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

03.10.2017:-

COMPLAINANT/BY SRI.

OPPOISTE PARTY/BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

 

02.   The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.944/- being the sale price of the GSM SIM card based Wireless Phone Huawei ETS 5623 Walky Phone along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization for to be recovered from the OP.

 

03.   The OP is directed to comply the above said order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  

 

04.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 03^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT