BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 43/2012.
THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Prabhudev Vishwakarma S/o. Ayyapa, age 34
years, Occ: Service Technician in Cromption & Bajaj Company, Bangalore R/O C/O Sri. Veerabhadresshwara Electrical, Mumbai Company Road, Gajgarpet, Sathkacheri Post Office, Netaji Nagar, Police Station, Near Kannikaparameshwari Hostel, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. M/s. BNPL/HYD/59, Naptol Online Shopping
Pvt. Ltd., C/o. Bolarum Post Office, Secunderabad- 500010.
2. Alpha Radio Hyderabad alternate address of
Alpha Radio, Shop No: 1900, near Sheesh Gunj, Gurudwar, Chadini Chowk, Delhi- 110006.
CLAIM :- For direct the opposites to refund the mobile
price with interest, damages with compensation.
Date of institution :- 01-06-12.
Notice served :- 03-07-12.
Date of disposal :- 10-07-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Venu Jalibenchi, Advocate.
Opposite Nos-1 & 2 Ex-parte.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Prabhudev Vishwakarma against Naptol On Line Shopping Pvt. Ltd., & Alpha Radio Secunderabad U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to refund the mobile price with interest, damages and compensation amount.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, as per the advertisement given in Kannada Newspaper by opposite No-1, complainant placed an order for purchase of mobile set through On Line Booking vide order No. 3302922 dt. 24-01-2012 as opposite No-1 published the sale of mobile on concession price upto 63% of its real cost.
3. After placing on line purchase order, he received one package on 27-01-2012 by VPP on payment of Rs. 3298/-. The mobile supplied by opposite No-1 was not at all in-accordance with the offers made in the newspaper. Memory Card and battery damaged, blue tooth damaged, charger pin damaged, memory card slot pin damaged, totally, it was not use-able, thereafter, he made a complaint before the service center of opposite No-1, it gave a different number for contact, but the said number was not answerable. He made several requests, but it was not served purpose, ultimately he issued legal notice, no reply was given by opposites. Hence, this complaint is filed against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.
4. Opposite Nos-1 & 2 were placed Ex-parte.
5. In the circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service with regard to supply of Naptol Mobile as it was completely damaged and un-usable, thereby both of them have shown their negligence in replacement of the said mobile and thereby opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. To prove the allegations made against opposite Nos. 1 & 2, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are marked. The damaged mobile was exhibited in the court.
8. As per the paper publication vide Ex.P-1, the Naptol opposite No-1 made an offer to sell VOX4 SIM TV Mobile for lowest price of Rs. 2,999/- even though it’s an original price is of Rs. 7,998/-.
9. There cannot be any exaggerative evidence of this complainant in this regard. His evidence is in-accordance with the publication vide Ex.P-1. On line payment challan Ex.P-4 regarding the payment of Rs. 3,298/- for to get release of article sent by opposites.
10. On perusal of the exhibited article, it is completely damaged article, it is not in-accordance with the standards of publication in the newspaper at Ex.P-1.
11. Notices to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 served by RPAD, even though, both of them remained Ex-parte.
12. By going through the affidavit-evidence and documentary evidences referred above, and the copy of the legal notice at Ex.P-3, it is very much clear that, opposites are engaged in unfair trade practice in their business by giving publication of so many offers for to sell their products, but thereafter they are in the habit of supplying low quality and sub-standard materials to its customers. Further, it is clear that opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not responded to the complaint made by the complainant with regard to supply of sub-standard and damaged article. As such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service by the opposites, Hence, we answered Point No-1 accordingly
13. As regards to the reliefs are concerned, Ex.P-4 clearly discloses that, complainant paid Rs. 3,298/- to opposites, as such, he is entitled to recover that amount from opposite Nos. 1 & 2.
14. As regards to negligence of opposites is concerned, complainant is entitled for to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service.
15. Complainant is also entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. As such, complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 8,298/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-2
POINT NO.3:-
16. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 8,298/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 8,298/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
One month time is granted to opposites to make the above payment to the complainant from the date of this judgment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 10-07-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
