Karnataka

Bellary

CC/181/2014

Y.MALLIKARJUNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SNAPDEAL,ATTN.MR.HARI SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI B.VEERANAGOWDA

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

FILED ON:	05-11-2014
ORDER ON:	05-03-2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

 

C.C.No.181 of 2014

Present :

 

(1)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……    President

(in-charge)

 

(2) Smt Mary Havila,

B.A.                       ……        Member

 

 

 

DATED THIS THE  05^th DAY OF MARCH 2015

 

 

COMPLAINANT   By- Shri B Veeranagouda, Advocate, Bellary.     //VS//	Y. Mallikarjuna, S/o Mariswamy, Age: 28 years, 8th cross, Hanuman Nagar, Near Sai Baba Temple, Ananthapur road, Bellary.
RESPONDENT   //Exparte//	M/s Snapdeal, Attn. Mr. Hari Singh, Khasra No.10/13/1, Revenue Estate, Old Gurgaon road, Near Karan Dharam Kanta, Village Samalkha, Delhi-110 037.

 

 

// O R D E R //

 

Per Smt Mary Havila.

 

The complainant filed the complaint against the respondent U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant ordered a Philips 22 PFL3958/V7 22 inches full HD LED television under I.D.No.2128836209 dated: 20-05-2014 through online.  The TV was supplied by the respondent through courier and the complainant received it after paying an amount of Rs.10,693/-.  Thereafter, the complainant found defects on the very next day i.e. scratches were found on the TV, poor visible picture and sound system was not proper and on seeing all these the complainant called the respondent through phone and informed about the defects.  On 11-06-2014 the respondent informed that their nominated courier partners were not able to pick up the TV and requested the complainant to send it via any national courier service.  Accordingly the complainant has sent it and the respondent acknowledged the receipt and assured that within one month the TV would be replaced.  When the complainant contacted the respondent after one month on                         19-07-2014 the respondent kept on postponing on one reason or the other and did not give proper response.   The respondent being a authorized dealer has sold a defective TV to the complainant and this conduct shows that the company is cheating its customers.  Time and again the respondent kept on postponing the matter causing inconvenience and hardship to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Therefore, the complaint.

3.  On service of notice when the respondent failed to appear he is placed exparte

4.  The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 07 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.

 

5. Heard the arguments on complainant’s side

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

 

1.	Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondent towards him, as alleged in the complaint?
2.	Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3.	What order?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.  The findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1:	In the affirmative.
Point No.2:	Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.3:	As per final order.

 

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1 : -

8.  There is no challenge to the case of the complainant from the respondent as he is placed exparte.

9.   However, the complainant to prove his case produced the copy of the order booking for Philips 22 PFL3958/V7 22 inches full HD LED television for Rs.10,693/-,  from the respondent.  To prove that the complainant had complained the defects in the TV purchased by him from the respondent, produced the copies of e-mail letters sent to the respondent which are marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.  Ex.P.6 copy of the courier receipt shows that the complainant sent back the TV to the respondent.    But the respondent has not replaced the TV with new one.   The respondent having not replaced the TV of the complainant with new one, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him. Non-refund of the said amount by the respondent to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on his part.  Accordingly, we answer this point in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :-

10. As the complainant has proved that he had paid Rs.10,693/- to the respondent towards cost of the TV, he is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him, from the respondent, along with interest, compensation towards deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order.    Accordingly, we answer this point partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 : -

11.   In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following;

 

//ORDER//

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.10,693/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 05-11-2014  till its realization, from the respondent.

The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, from the respondent.

The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondent.

The respondent is liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.

Inform the parties accordingly.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this 05th day of March 2015)

 

 

 

 

	(R.BANDACHAR) PRESIDENT
	(MARY HAVILA) MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

trk