Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/09/2817

Smt Sudha Satyanand W/o Sri B.S.Satyanand, Aged About 34 Years - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Times Internet Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Satyanand

26 Mar 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624
No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/2817

Smt Sudha Satyanand W/o Sri B.S.Satyanand, Aged About 34 Years
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/s Times Internet Ltd
M/s Times Internet Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa

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

O R D E R SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT: 1. The grievance of the complainant against the OPs in brief is that she based on an aggressive marketing done by the Ops through Times of India, Bangalore Edition, Newspaper dtd:29/08/2009. To supply “fully Imported Car Audio Video System” she intended to purchase the same at the cost of Rs.5,999/- + 280/- towards delivery charges and she booked for supply of the system through telephone order with Ops who have issued booking No’s. That she on 02/09/2009 issued a cheque for Rs.6,279/- to Ops for supply of that Audio Video System and that cheque is encahsed by OP 2 which is the branch of OP No:1 on 07/09/2009. Ops had agreed to supply system in 10 days, when she did not receive the same she made several calls to Ops then after lapse of one month after booking, on 28/08/2009 Ops sent E-Mail to her stating that the product is sent. She received the parcel from Ops on 29/09/2009 and when, opened the parcel she was shocked to see parcel which contained local scrap items insisted of a Imported Car Audio Video System which was not even worth Rs.2,000/- to 3,000/-. Then she was upset with that consignment got issued notice the OPs on 01/10/2009 and sent E-Mail demanding the Ops to comply his demand by supplying Imported Car Audio Video. Then on 10/10/2009 one Mr. Abhishek Kumar of OP No:1 sent E-Mail in which he by regretting about sending Spurious nature of the goods sent requested her to return the product promising to send new one. Accordingly he sent that System back but the Ops have failed supply him the imported set as promised. Therefore has prayed for a direction to Ops to refund of Rs.6,279/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and for awarding Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. 2. Notices of this complaint was duly served on the Ops but have remained absent, as such they are placed set exparte. 3. In the Course of enquiry into this complaint, complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and has produced a Paper advertisement given by the Ops and published in Times of India daily News Paper dtd:27/08/2009, receipt issued towards payment of cost of System. a copy E-Mail he received from OP No:1, copies of E-Mail she sent to Ops with copies of notices she got issued to Ops. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the grievance of the complainant and the Paper advertisement issued by Ops, we find that the Ops had advertised offering supply of Imported Car Audio Video System in with certain additional facilities for Rs.5,999/- + 280 towards delivery charge as against its MRP rate Rs.12,297/-. We also see the receipt in this complaint having sent Rs.6,279/- to Ops towards supply of the system. We are also seeing an E-Mail sent by one Mr.Abhishek Kumar of Ops on 10/10/2009 admitting a defective item sent to the complainant and requesting the complainant to send back that defective system to them. It is stated by the complainant that she sent back that defective Audio video System to the Ops but they thereafter failed to send her the Imported System as promised and had even failed to repay her money, therefore has prayed for a direction to grant to the relief as prayed for. 5. The representative of the Opponents through E-Mail though admitted to had sent a defective Audio Video System and took it back but thereafter failed to refund the money or to supply an Imported System as promised and thereby the Ops have found have indulged in unfair trade practice. The Ops despite demanding for relief through legal notice have not shown any positive response to compensate to complainant and we therefore, hold there is noting to disbelieve the claiming of the complainant. Hence we find that the complainant needs to be allowed and pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is allowed. 1. Ops are held jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and are directed to refund Rs.6,279/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 2. Ops shall pay damages of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for her mental agony and hardship and for harassment, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 3. On Ops are failing to pay the amounts as stated above they shall pay interest @ 15% p.a on the above amounts from the date of this order till the date of payment. 4. Ops shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.




......................Anita Shivakumar. K
......................Ganganarsaiah
......................Sri D.Krishnappa