Date of Filing:15.04.2009<br /> Date of Order:17.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 859 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Ravindra Shettigar<br /> No. 219, 3rd Floor<br /> Pavanashree Apartments<br /> Balaji Road, Tyagarajanagar II Block<br /> Bangalore Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Managing Director<br /> Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd.<br /> 1105, 3rd Floor, Kambi Kamlex<br /> OTC Road, Near SP Road<br /> And Corporation Circle<br /> Bangalore 560002<br /> <br /> 2. Sangeetha<br /> 22/107, 9th Main, 4th Block<br /> Jayanagar, Opp. Janatha Bazaar<br /> Bangalore Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant that he had bought Asus cell phone model P 527 for Rs. 17,000/- vide Invoice No. ST/JNR/2299 dated 28.05.2008 from opposite party No. 2 Sangeetha Shop, Bangalore. The unit did not work from the first day of usage. Therefore, it was given to the service centre and they could not repair the same even after changing battery and software. Opposite parties have conducted unfair trade practices by misleading the complainant to believe that they have sold new working handset. There is severe deficiency of service in the service of opposite party. The complainant submitted that International Consumer Rights Protection Council sent notice dated 07.01.2009 to the opposite party. Complainant claims refund of cost of the handset of Rs. 17,000/- and compensation for inconvenience and harassment Rs. 50,000/- and cost of complaint Rs. 10,000/- and he has also claimed interest at 18% on the above amount from the date of cause of action. <br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice was sent to opposite party No. 1 & 2 through registered post. Notice was served on the opposite parties. When the case was set for appearance of opposite parties on 14.08.2008 the opposite parties remained absent. Nobody represented the opposite parties. Defence version also not sent by post. Therefore, the opposite parties were placed exparte. <br /> 3. The complainant was present in person and he submitted his argument in detail. He referred to the documents, warranty card and also PDA service form and notice sent to the opposite party by International Consumer Rights Protection Council. The complainant requested for the refund of the cost of the mobile handset and also requested for grant of compensation for the inconvenience caused to him. I have gone through the complaint and the documents. Complainant has produced invoice of Sangeetha Dealer. From this invoice it is clear that complainant has purchased P 527 Asus PC for Rs. 17,000/- on 28.05.2008. The complainant has produced warranty card. This warranty card indicates that Asus product is substantially free from defects in materials and workmanship. Warranty period starts on the date of purchase from authorized dealer. The product includes 12 months legal warranty from the date of original purchase. The warranty for the battery is also 12 months under normal use. The complainant has stated in complaint that the cell phone did not work from the first day of usage. Therefore, he had given to the service centre. Even after that also the same could not be repaired. He has produced PDA service form dated 03.10.2008. This service form also indicate ‘Battery is firmware problem’. The complainant submitted that he had been cheated by the opposite parties for selling a defective product. Even after change of battery and software the handset could not work. The opposite parties did not replace the handset. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite parties though served with notice from this fora have not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, it appears that opposite parties have no defence to make. That is why they have not appeared before this fora. The complainant had approached International Consumer Rights Protection Council with his grievance. The said council sent notice to the opposite party No. 1 on 07.01.2009 through e-mail and requested the company to refund Rs. 17,000/- to the customer and compensate the consumer with Rs. 500/- for causing him mental agony and harassment. In the said notice it is also stated failing which further action will be initiated for seeking full refund of the amount with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for loss, mental agony and harassment. Even after receipt of this notice by the International Consumer Rights Protection Council the opposite parties have not taken any steps in refunding the amount to the complainant. The opposite parties have ignored the notice of the International Consumer Rights Protection Council. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint before this fora. The case put up by the complainant deserves to be accepted as true and correct. The opposite parties should not have sold the defective product to the customer. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of the consumers. The interest of present complainant deserves to be protected by ordering refund of the amount since the product is having manufacturing defect. The complainant has requested to grant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. There is no legal basis to claim this exorbitant sum as compensation. However, the opposite parties are jointly and severally bound to refund the amount to the complainant with interest. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is entitled for 10% interest p.a. on the above amount from 28.05.2008 (date of invoice) till payment / realization. <br /> 5. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings to the complainant. <br /> 6. The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within four weeks from the date of this order.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER