Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/1489

L. Mohanakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Orange Woods - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 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/09/1489

L. Mohanakumar
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manager Orange Woods
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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: 26-06-2009 DISPOSED ON:11-08-2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 11TH AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI.A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1489/2009 COMPLAINANT L.MohanaKumar,No.206, Block IV,Aishwarya Amaze,Kodichikkanalli,Begur Hobli,Bangalore – 560 068.Party in PersonV/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,Orange Woods,No.141/1, Outer Ring Road,Dodda Banaswadi, Vijaya Bank Colony,Bangalore – 560 068. 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 refund the cost of furniture along with interest and pay compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 2. Complainant placed an order with the OP for supply of furniture comprising of a Sofa set, Wardrobe, Cot, Dressing table etc., for a total cost of Rs.40,217-63. OP promised to deliver the said furniture within a month from the date of placing the order. Complainant paid a advance amount of Rs.20,108/- and was expecting the delivery of the said furniture. But to his utter shock and surprise even after the lapse of 7 months there was no response from the OP. The repeated request and demands made by the complainant either to deliver the furniture or refund the advance went in futile. Thus complainant felt an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. 4. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the admitted address of the OP. OP did not claim the said notice, the service is held sufficient. The absence of OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 6. It is the case of the complainant that he placed an order for supply of furniture comprising of a Sofa set, Wardrobe, Cot, and Dressing table with the OP on 09-06-2008. The total cost of the said furniture is Rs.40,217-63. OP promised to deliver the said furniture within one month. Complainant paid 50% of the total cost i.e., Rs.20,108/- on 09-06-2008. The sale order receipt voucher are produced. 7. Though complainant waited patiently for more than 7 months there was no response from the OP. Neither OP supplied the furniture nor refunded the advance paid. Complainant was forced to address a letter on 22-01-2009 copy of the letter is produced. Again there was no response. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There was nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non-appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. 8. Complainant with a fond hope invested his hard earned money under a scheme floated by OP for supply of furniture but unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. OP having retained the said huge amount without supplying the furniture accrued the wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following : - O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.20,108/- with 12% interest from 09-06-2008 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. 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 her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 11th day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT NRS