Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/11/1566

Sri.Chandrashekar.k - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s M.P & Sons(HUF) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Showri H.R

18 Jan 2012

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM (Principal)
8TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BWSSB BUILDING, BANGALORE-5600 09.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/1566
 
1. Sri.Chandrashekar.k
S/o R.Krishnamurthy,Aged about 32 years,Permanent resident of Bheemeshwara Temple,Kote(Fort) Road,Shimoga-577201
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED:24.08.2011

        DISPOSED ON:03.02.2012

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 

3rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012

 

  PRESENT :-  

           SRI. B.S. REDDY                                  PRESIDENT

           SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                                  MEMBER

 

       COMPLAINT NO.1566/2011

                                 

Complainant

  Chandrashekar K

  S/o R.Krishnamurthy,

  Aged about 32 years,

  Permanent resident of

  Bheemeshwara Temple,

  Kote(Fort) Road,

  Shimoga-577 201.  

 

  Adv:Sri.Showri H.R.

 

V/s.

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.    M/s M.P. & Sons (HUF)

No.601/602, 80 ft Road,

BSK 3rd Stage,

2nd Phase, 7th Block,

Near Hoskerehalli Signal,

Bangalore-560 085,

Represented by its Kartha.

 

Placed Ex-parte.

 

2. M/s VRL Logistics Ltd,

Giriraja Annexe,

Circute House Road,

Hubli-580 029,

Rep. by its Managing Director.

 

Adv:Sri.Vishwanath R.Hegde

  

 

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against Ops to replace the damaged sink or to pay the entire amount of Rs.7,250/- being cost of the sink along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

2.In spite of service of notice, OP1 remained ex-parte, OP2 though appeared through counsel but failed to file version.

3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence.

4. Arguments on complainant’s side heard, OP2 side taken as heard.

5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that the complainant purchased a White Sink Basin from the OP1 on 18.05.2011, for Rs.7,250/-, Tax invoice is annexure-1. OP1 had sent the said sink in Courier of the OP2 and the complainant received the said item on 19.05.2011 at his residence through the representative of OP2 along with Way bill, copy of Way bill at Annexure-2. When the complainant opened the said item in the presence of the representative of OP2, the item was damaged and it was broken, further the same was not packed properly. The representative of OP2 declined to accept any responsibility stating that the item had been handed over to them in a packed manner and they are not responsible for the damage and breaking of the item and further that the damage must have been due to improper packaging by OP1 or OP1 might have packed and sent a damaged piece only. When the complainant approached OP1, they stated that they are not responsible for the same and put the blame on OP2. OP1 declined to replace the damaged item. Thus it becomes clear that both these Ops are responsible for the damage caused to the white sink basin purchased by the complainant. OP2 could have taken proper care while carrying the same to the address of the complainant. There is no material to hold that OP1 has packed the item properly and it is only on account of negligence of OP2 in carrying the item, the damage has been caused. On the basis of materials available and photograph produced by the complainant, we are of the view that both the Ops are responsible for the damage caused to the sink purchased by the complainant. The notice has been issued on 11.07.2011 to both the Ops, OP1 has not complied the demand nor replied the notice. OP2 has sent untenable reply.

            There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The very fact of OP1 remaining ex-parte and OP2 having not filed version leads to draw inference that OPs are admitting the claim of the complainant. The complainant is entitled for the entire amount of Rs.7,250/- paid towards cost of the Sink along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

       

        The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,250/-towards the cost of the sink along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

 Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

 

(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 3rd day of FEBRUARY 2012.)

 

                                                                                                      

 

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Cs.

 

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.