Date of Filing:13.07.2007<br /> Date of Order: 06.02.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1473 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> M. Noorulla Shariff,<br /> S/o Haji Ghulam Rasool,<br /> No.58, KHB Colony, <br /> Ground Floor, V Block,<br /> Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-560 095. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s G.K.B Optolab (P) Ltd.,<br /> Represented by its Principal <br /> Regional Officer/Manager, <br /> having its place of business<br /> at No.19, 12th Main, 30th Cross,<br /> IV Block, (Opp. BHS College Gate),<br /> Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed for reimbursement of the price paid towards purchase of spectacles and damages. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant has purchased three spectacles for a price of Rs. 2,500/-. After purchase complainant started using the spectacles. After a couple of days the complainant and his wife suffered headache and he stopped using the same. He brought the same to the notice of opposite party. The opposite party asked to pay the costs of frames. The opposite party refused to rectify the defects. On 28/5/2007 the complainant issued written demand to opposite party for return of price. The complainant redelivers the broken spectacles on 19/5/2007 for rectification and since then he has not received back the same. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance and permitted to file the defense version on payment of costs of Rs.100/-. The opposite party filed defense version.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of price of spectacles? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has produced receipts for having purchased spectacles under bill No.189 dated 25/4/2007 for Rs. 2,500/- and another bill No.190 dated 25/4/2007 and this bill is also for Rs. 2,500/-. These two bills are in the name of complainant Noorullah Shariff. The complainant has produced copy of notice and postal acknowledgment. As regards purchase of spectacles from the opposite party there is no dispute. It is also admitted that the opposite party received complaint from the complainant about headache suffered by him. It is also admitted that the complainant returned the spectacles 15 days after purchase. The opposite party submitted that complainant was informed that if the spectacle lenses found to be incorrect and on the basis of eye test, the opposite party would replace the lens absolutely free of cost. It is also admitted fact that the spectacles are still laying in the optical out let of the opposite party. The complainant is a senior citizen, has filed his affidavit. He has explained in his affidavit that goods purchased by him are not standard quality. The complainant has suffered headache and the spectacles supplied to him was not a good quality and having used substandard material. The opposite party being a reputed company, it has got hundred optical outlets all over India. Such a reputed company should see that the customers shall not complain in respect of the standard of the goods. The customers should be satisfied with the articles supplied to them. The defective or substandard material is used naturally the customer is entitled to be protected. In this case the complainant being a senior citizen, he has suffered on account of substandard material used and he had returned the goods to the opposite party within 15 days from the date of purchase. Consumer Protection Act is enacted to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. Protection of the consumers is the need of the hour. The act attempts to remove the helplessness of the consumer which he faces against powerful business. Therefore, the complainant who is not satisfied with the spectacles supplied by the opposite party is entitled for refund of the amount paid to opposite party. Since the complainant has produced bill No.189 and 190 which are in his name and he is entitled to Rs.5,000/- in respect of these two bills. The complainant has produced another bill No.191 which is in the name of Farhdunissa, she is not the complainant before this Forum. Without she is being made party as a complainant, it is difficult to refund the amount in respect of the bill No.191, this is admittedly in the name of Smt. Farhdunissa. The complainant has claimed Rs.3,800/- towards damages for 76 days. There is no basis to grant Rs.3,800/- as damages. The question of granting damages in this case does not arise. There is no legal base as to how the complainant has claimed Rs.250/- per day as damages. Grant of damages in this case is not justified. The ends of justice will be met in ordering the opposite party to refund Rs. 5,000/- the price of two spectacles purchased by the complainant in his name. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5,000/-, the price of two spectacles purchased to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for costs of Rs.1,000/- including the cost awarded on 29/11/2007 from the opposite party.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />