Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam

CC/253/2013

VENIGALA LAKSHMANA RAO - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHADEV ACCESSORIES - Opp.Party(s)

S.JOGA RAO

27 Nov 2014

ORDER

Date of registration     : 06.11.2013

Date of order                          : 27.11.2014

 

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT  CONSUMERS FORUM-I,

VISAKHAPATNAM : AP

 

PRESENT:  Smt K.V.R.Maheswari, B.A., B.L., LL.M.,

 Lady Member & FAC President

 

Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, B.A., LL.M., PGDHR,

Member

Thursday the 27^th day of November, 2014

Consumer Complaint No:  253 / 2013

Between:    

Venigala Lakshmana Rao, S/o Appa Rao, D.No.54-2-73/25,

Ambedkar Nagar, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam-530022  …   Complainant

 

And:

 

Mahadev Accessories, D.No.30-15-139, Shop No.16,

Ram’s Arcade, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam-530020

(Represented by Proprietor)                                            … Opposite Parties

 

This case is coming for final hearing on 26-11-2014 in the presence of Sri S.Joga Rao, Advocate for Complainant and Sri B.K.Naidu, Advocate for Opposite party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

: O R D E R :

(As per Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1. The Complainant has filed the present Complaint under Sec.12 of C.P.Act against the Opposite Party on 6.11.2013 and requested the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties (1) to refund the value of the Mobile Speaker i.e. Rs.150/- to him (2) to grant Rs.50,000/- compensation for causing mental agony to him.

2. The brief averments are as follows: The Complainant purchased one Mobile Speaker (I-Plus) on 25.10.2013 vide receipt No.71. Initially it worked for sometime and thereafter it is not working. He went to the Opposite Party’s shop and requested to replace the same or  else to refund the amount of Rs.150/-. The Opposite Party did not heeded the request of the Complainant and refused to replace the Mobile Speaker and also refuse to pay the value of the speaker. Hence the Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party and requested the Forum as sought for.

3. Initially the Complainant filed the present complaint in person and thereafter M/s.Sri Joga Rao, Advocates were engaged to prosecute his case.

4. Notice served to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed counter denying the entire averments of the Complainant and stated that the complainant has falsely filed Complaint against the Opposite Party. He has never approached the Opposite Party shop at any point of time and also he has not purchased the Mobile Speaker from the Opposite Party shop. The said Receipt No.71 dt. 25.10.2013 was not issued by the Opposite Party and it was fabricated by the Complainant himself. The Opposite Party further states that as there is some suspicion upon the professional enemies in the said field some other persons might have engaged the complainant to file the false complaint against the Opposite Party to degrade him in the market and to damage his reputation in the market. Hence the Complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. On perusing the pleadings of the both sides the Forum is framed the following points for consideration:-

   1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party ;

       

   2. To what relief.

6. The Complainant filed his Evidence Affidavit reiterating the averments mentioned in the Complaint and filed one document i.e. Receipt No.71 dt. 25.10.2013 which was marked as Ex.A1. On behalf of Opposite Party Sri Mangaram, Proprietor of the Opposite Party shop filed Evidence Affidavit and there are no documents on behalf of the Opposite Party except the Blank proforma cash bill vide Sl.No.99, dt.Nil, which was filed along with the Counter.

7. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties filed Written Arguments and also adduced their oral arguments. At the time of oral arguments, the Opposite Party stated that too Opposite Party has received a copy of the Ex.A1 Bill in which there is no address is mentioned and when comparing with Ex.A1 Receipt No.71, the Evidence Affidavit cannot be considered. The Complainant’s counsel stated that initially the complaint was filed by the Complainant himself and thereafter he has engaged an Advocate to prosecute the case and at the time of taking the Xerox the address of the Opposite Party might not have been printed in the Xerox copy and the original Bill No.71 dt. 25.10.2013 which was enclosed with the Complaint reveals the actual fact.

8. Point No.1: The present complaint was filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party for refund of Mobile Speaker value of Rs.150/- besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony by the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party stated in the Counter that the Complainant has filed a false case without any cause of action and also on perusing the Ex.A1 Receipt dt. 25.10.2013 as there is no warranty and no guarantee mentioned in the Ex.A1 Bill, the Opposite Party is not liable to refund an amount and also not liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.

9. Ex.A1 Receipt dt. 25.10.2013 which is on the name of the complainant in which it reveals that he has purchased one Mobile speaker for Rs.150/- from the Opposite Party. Observing the Ex.A1 it reveals that it was endorsed as “No guarantee No warranty”.

10. Observing the contents of the Opposite Party along with the Ex.A1, Receipt we are of conclusive opinion that selling the products without guarantee & warranty amounts to unfair trade practice and at the same time when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party that the Speaker was not functioning well, it is the duty of the Opposite Party either to replace or to refund the value of the Speaker by taking back the Mobile Speaker of the Complainant. As the Opposite Party has not responded for the request of the Complainant either for replacement or refund of the amount there is a gross negligence and deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

11. Point No.2:  As per Point No.1 we already came to conclusion that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite Parties, hence we are of considered opinion that the only equitable remedy available to the Complainant is refund of the Mobile Speaker value of Rs.150/- from the Opposite Party along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.10.2013 (date of Ex.A1) till realization. The Complainant is directed to handover the defective mobile speaker to the Opposite Party and after receiving the Mobile Speaker, the Opposite Party has to give Rs.150/- along with interest as specified above and thereafter he shall obtain a receipt to that extent from the Complainant. The Opposite Parties also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/- towards legal expenditure to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

12. In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party has to refund the Mobile Speaker value of Rs.150/- along with interest @ 9% from 25.10.2013 till realization. The Complainant is directed to approach the Opposite Party along with defective Mobile speaker and he shall handover the same to the Opposite Party. After receiving the same the Opposite Party shall pay the amount of Rs.150/- along with interest as specified above. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs for legal expenditure. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of November, 2014.

     

        Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

    President (FAC)                                                         Member           

                                                                                  District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                         Visakhapatnam

     

    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

     

    Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Ex.A1

25.10.2013

Receipt

Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party: - NIL -

 

 

    Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

President (FAC)                                                                   Member           

                                                                             District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                                      Visakhapatnam