IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 351/09 DATED 13.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Puttaraju, No.1975, 5th cross, 2nd Main Road, ‘K’ Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party M.B. Electronics, No.35 & 36, Below Tanishaq, D. Devaraja Urs Road, Mysore-1.<br /> ( By Sri.P.R, Advocate,)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 16.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 07.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 13.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 6 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party alleging that the T.V. purchased is defective and not new one.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged by the complaint that, on 29.04.2009, the complainant purchased CTVAW21-M-80 from the opposite party for Rs.8,700/-. The said Sony T.V. and remote are of low quality. All four corners of the front portion of the T.V. there is wear and tear. There is no clarity in the T.V. The opposite party sold old T.V. with same new electronic parts. Along the T.V, remote of Sony Company was to be given but the opposite party has given local made remote. The complainant approached the opposite party many a times but the opposite party postponed to comply the request of the complainant. The complainant had been to the opposite party about 40 times. The complainant has suffered mentally. When the complainant told to the opposite party that he will approached the Consumer Forum, the opposite party told that the complainant may do whatever he likes. On these ground, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, the opposite party has contend that the complaint is not maintainable and it is stated that, when the complainant purchased Sony T.V., original new remote was in drawer, which was locked and hence, the complainant had asked to come and collect new remote on the next day. On the next day the opposite party called upon the complainant to take new remote, but that day onwards the complainant never contacted the opposite party nor come to the shop to collect the new remote till today. The new remote is with this opposite party and opposite party is ready to give it to the complainant. It is stated that other allegations are not within the knowledge of the opposite party. It is denied that old T.V. was given as new one to the complainant. Also it stated, the opposite party is ready to examine the T.V. set in question by the experts of the company. And if it is found that it does not belong to the company, opposite party will refund the amount. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleging in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit, where as for the opposite party one Mr. Praveen working with the opposite party has filed his affidavit. We have heard the complainant and the advocate for the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Purchase of T.V. by the complainant by the opposite party is admitted. The T.V. purchased by the complainant is Sony CTV. The complainant alleges, said T.V. as well as remote is of low quality. Also the complainant alleges the remote given by the opposite party is not of Sony Company but local made. The opposite party admits Sony Company remote has not been given to the complainant along with the T.V. When the complainant purchased particular brand T.V, remote of the same company has to be given subject to contrary contract. Non supply of new remote is admitted by the opposite party. Hence, this is sufficient to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party has assigned the reason that the remote was kept in drawer, which was under lock by the manager and the complainant was asked to come and collect on the next day. To what extent said contention could be believed needs to be considered. In a T.V. show room keeping remote in a drawer under lock, appears to be unnatural and it appears just to assign some reasons, such explanation is offered by the opposite party for not providing new remote. But the said reason or explanation is not worth to be believed.<br /> <br /> 9. It is the contention of the opposite party that, on the next day the complainant was informed to take new remote but from that day onwards the complainant never contacted the opposite party nor come to the shop to collect new remote even till today. It is definite and specific case of the complaint that old T.V. set has been sold as new one and there is wear and tear on all four corners of the front portion of the T.V. and also there was no clarity and the remote was local made. It is stated in the complaint that, the complainant visited opposite party nearly for about 40 times. Considering the facts put forth by the complainant, the contention of the opposite party that in spite of the information the complainant did not contact the opposite party since then till today, is false and such a contention is put forth as a counter blast to the facts alleged in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 10. It is stated that the complainant approached the opposite party nearly for about 40 times and thereby he put to mental agony and whenever the complainant enquired with the opposite party, irrelevant false reply was given and further it is stated when he told to the opposite party that he will approached the Consumer Forum, it was told that the complainant can do anything he likes. This attitude and behaviour of the opposite party alleged by the complainant, under the circumstances, cannot brushed aside.<br /> <br /> 11. The complainant has stated that, not only that he went to the shop of the opposite party several times but he lost salary as he had to avail the leave and so also he spent Rs.200/- auto charges to bring the T.V.<br /> <br /> 12. It is specifically alleged and claimed by the complainant that, the T.V sold by the opposite party is old one and so also there is no clarity etc.,. In this regard the opposite party has contend that they are ready to examine the T.V set by the experts of the company and if it is found that the T.V. does not belong to the said company they are ready to refund the amount. But as could be seen from the facts put forth by the complainant since from the month of April, the complainant approached the opposite party many times but they did not yield to the request of the complainant and on the contrary, their behaviour was not proper.<br /> <br /> 13. Considering the facts, we are of the opinion there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 14. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to get the T.V. in question examined by the technician of the Sony Company within 15 days from the date of the order and if it is found that, said T.V. is old one, shall replace it to new one of the same model with fresh guarantee and warranty along with new remote. On failure to comply the above direction the opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs.8,700/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a.<br /> 3. On examination of the T.V. in question by the company technician if it is found that the T.V. in question is not old but new one then the opposite party shall provide new remote and further, repair the said T.V. set to the satisfaction of the complainant, within 25 days from the date of the order.<br /> 4. Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 13th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />