Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one new handset on 28.03.2011 being Blackberry Z10 on payment of Rs. 18,500/- and at the time of purchase complainant was suggested to avail exchange offer whereas the complainant can get an exchange value of Rs. 4,500/- against purchasing of new handset and complainant had one another old handset of Samsung S Duos bearing model No. GTS7562ZKAINS, IMEI No. 354905054121894 and complainant was impressed by the said offer and purchased the new Blackberry Z10 and handed over the old said Samsung. The aforesaid exchange amount of Rs. 4,500/- was adjusted with the price of new handset but op adjusted the only Rs. 3,500/- instead of Rs. 4,500/-. But against that complainant asked the sales executive and they stated that after handover the complaint did not carry the cover box and other accessories like mobile charger, data cable etc. Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid and to that effect a bill was issued for deposit of the same and for paying the balance Rs. 1,000/- vide a Bill No. MBO/0314/1968 dated 28.03.2014 and complainant on good faith paid the entire balance amount for the new handset after adjusting the price of the old handset.
On 01.04.2014 complainant sent his peon with the bill of Rs. 1,000/- dated 28.03.2014 issued by the op along with purchase Memo of the aforesaid old handset, covering box, charger, head phone and datacable the Samsung S Duos. Suddenly complainant received a phone call from his peon stating that cash executive of the op is refused to accept the aforesaid accessories and also refused to pay the balance of Rs. 1,000/- in spite of producing the valid bill. Thereafter complainant asked the aforesaid peon to request the sale executive to talk to the complainant for a while accordingly it was requested but the aforesaid sales executive refused to talk with the complainant.
Thereafter complainant made phone call to the contact number to one of the executive of the op received the call and the complainant explained him the entire issue but the executive asked the complainant to hold the call for sometime. Thereafter it was given to the cash executive and the complainant was told by the cash executive that the aforesaid old handset is already been sold and the op does not require the aforesaid accessories. Complainant then also requested to accept the bill and refund the said amount of Rs. 1,000/-, but they abused the complainant over phone and further complainant tried to ask to refund Rs. 1,000/-, the complainant shall have to face dire consequences.
Thereafter complainant wrote a letter dated 02.02.2014 addressing to the Director of the op company and stated the entire episode but despite receiving the aforesaid letter the Director of Op Company has not taken any steps or even bother to reply the aforesaid letter. In the above circumstances, for causing harassment and for their negligent and deficient manner of service, complainant has filed this case for redressal.
On the other hand op Limton Private Limited appeared by filing written statement stating that regarding purchase of the same and issuance of the bill everything is correct and fact remains complainant’s peon came on 01.04.2014 along with Xerox copy of bill but that peon was asked to submit the original bill along with accessories to get refund of Rs. 1,000/- but all other allegations are false and fabricated, no one abused the complainant even to his peon.
It is further submitted that on receipt of the notice of the complainant, op got the complainant over phone number of the complainant and apprised him difficulty to give Rs. 1,000/- against a Xerox copy of the bill and also requested him to either send the original bill or pay a personal visit with his photo identity card to collect Rs. 1,000/- after personally signing the duplicate copy of the bill. But complainant has suppressed the story and made such a false and fabricated case only to harass the op. So, the complainant’s complaint should be dismissed and complainant may any time receive the sum by sending duplicate bill and original bill.
Decision with reasons
After careful consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the entire story of the complaint including the written version, it is found that op has admitted that complainant has admitted to get back Rs. 1,000/- against bill No. MBO/0314/1968 dated 28.03.2014. But op has tried to convince this Forum that original bill was not produced for which peon of the complainant was compelled to ask to bring the same, except that they never abused the complainant or his peon and op has further tried to convince that when complainant sent notice they reported to the complainant that complainant may appear and sign on the duplicate bill and received the same.
But truth is that in respect of that there is no reply on the part of the op to prove that on receipt of the letter from the complainant, they responded and asked the complainant to come personally to receive the said Rs. 1,000/- after signing in the duplicate bill. So the defence as taken by the op at this stage cannot be accepted in view of the fact and it is the common practice of business man to harass the consumers after selling the new set and adjusting certain amount against old one.
Truth is that complainant is a lawyer. So, invariably his version cannot be disbelieved in view of the present position and also of the fact that no reply was made by the op against the letter of the complainant dated 02.04.2014. When op has appeared that they received the letter invariably op must have to prove that what is his defect and the present difficulties as taken by the op is nothing but a concocted one and it is our experience that many shopkeepers are appearing before this Forum by taking such a plea, but their gentle behavior with the consumer is uncalled for in most of the cases for which for pretty amount the consumers are being forced to appear before the Consumer Forum, particularly in this case it is proved that this complainant’s lawyer had no desire to appear before this Forum for refund of Rs. 1,000/-. But for their behavior and unmannerly attitude to refuse to refund the said amount. But complainant’s lawyer was aggrieved that he was practically mis-behaved by the op and said amount has not been paid.
For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that op did not refund of the said amount only on the ground for non-presentation of the original bill in that case on the very day appearance by the op, op can issue a cheque by filing written objection stating all the fact but that has not been done. But only for Rs. 1,000/- op has filed a lengthy written statement and contest the case engaging a lawyer. It indicates that they have their no desire to refund the same and considering all the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that the manner of conduct of the op is no doubt uncalled for and no doubt complainant has been harassed by the op, though complainant has a legal bill by paying that amount as per that bill but that had not been done. It tantamounts to negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op and no doubt complainant has been harassed by the op and he has been suffering mental pain, agony which cannot be compensated by mere finding or penalty or compensation.
In the result the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Op is directed to pay refund Rs. 1,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for harassing the complainant for causing mental pain and agony. Accordingly op shall have to pay total Rs. 4,000/- (for litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- + 1,000/- for compensation +Rs. 1,000/- mental harassment) within 15 days from the date of this order positively failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for reluctant attitude of the Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 200/- per day which shall be deposited to this Forum till full satisfaction of the decree.
Even then if it is found that op is unwilling to pay the decretal amount within stipulated time in that case penal action shall be started against them for which they shall be further imposed penalty and fine for which they shall be liable.
