Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/14/1123

Mrs Rajeshwari K. S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Croma The Electronics Megastore (Infiniti Retail Ltd A Tata Enterpriese - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 23.06.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 09.04.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1123/2014

DATED THIS THE 9^TH APRIL OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Mrs.Rajeshwari.K.S

P-214, 8^th Main,

11^th cross, LIC Colony, Jeevanbhimanagar,

Bengaluru-75.

 

Inperson     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

M/s.Croma-The Electronics Megastore,

(Infinity Retail Ltd.,)

A Tata Enterprise,

Ground Floor, EVA Mall,

No.60, Brigade Road,

Bengaluru-01.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- and request to set an example so that innocent consumers are not trapped and such outlets of repute do not cheat upon them by taking them for a ride.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, with an intention to purchase 50 inch LED 3D TV, she visited Op showroom.  Sales girl of Op suggested to go in for Vu TV and given assurance that the said TV had the following features: optical output, side by side viewing, warranty period, service set up & back up, type of 3D glasses, product feedback and movement, stock and freshness of the piece, delivery, provision of 3D material, payment mode etc., Believing her words, she purchased “Vu 20 inches 3D LED TV”.  The Complainant further submits that, after delivery, she noticed that the said TV do not have most of the advanced features as assured by the sales girl of Op. To her utter dismay and shock, she came to know that the said Vu TV was an outdated model and Vu had stopped manufacturing these long ago. In this context, she visited Op and discussed the issues with them. Op agreed to replace the said TV with another brand but with extra cost, for which Complainant is not ready to pay a single rupee as the issues caused her a lot of hardship, distress and upset etc., Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. Inspite of notice served on Op, it did not appear, hence placed exparte.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate her case filed affidavit evidence and produced 7 documents and also filed written arguments.  Heard.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

7. Point no.1:  We have already briefly stated the facts of the complaint. The main grievance of the Complainant is that, as per her specifications, Op has not given the TV set. She has also noticed that, the said TV set having only one year warranty but not two years as stated by the sales girl of Op. Believing the words of the said sales girl, Complainant has purchased the said TV set, wherein she has noticed that, many of the specifications did not found. In this context, she approached Op in respect of replacement with 50 inch TV preferably of another brand for which the Op did not respond. If the entire allegations stated in the complaint are strictly construed, one thing is clear that, it is the case of unfair trade practice on the part of Op, but not the case of manufacturing defect. If the Op is dare enough to oppose the claim of the Complainant, certainly appears by way of filing the version. Non-filing of version is amounts to admission of the allegations of the Complainant, as per the decision reported in 2018(1) CPR 325 (NC) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance ltd., vs. Dr.Nishi Gupta, wherein it is held as under:

 

“non-filing of the written version amounts to admission of allegations made by the Complainant in the consumer complaint”.

 

In the light of the decision cited supra, we come to the conclusion that, whatever the allegations made by the Complainant in her complaint are true and correct unless rebutted by the Op.

 

8. We noticed that, Op is ready to refund the price amount of the said TV set. But the say of the Complainant is quite different, which can be seen on her email dtd.05.06.14 sent to Op, stating that, she is not in favour of a refund as she already explained to Op that the problems she is facing and she has already sold the Old TV. If the refund is the only option and if she opt for it, it will encourage Op to exploit customers like this and she is not in favour of the same. With regard to her specifications are concerned, Op did not respond. Only option left open to this forum is to direct the Op to refund the price of the said TV by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC by way of molding the relief to which the Complainant is entitled. In this context, if the Op is directed to refund the price amount of Rs.58,494/- of the said TV set covered under retail invoice dtd.13.05.14 found at document no.4, we feel, ends of justice would met sufficiently. With regard to the compensation is concerned, the Complainant has sought for Rs.2,70,000/-. How she is entitle for compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- is concerned, there is no any evidence on record. In the absence of it, we feel it just and proper to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the compensation.   We also fix the cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of Op.

 

         9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.

 

2. Op is directed to refund the price of the said TV set to the Complainant covered under Retail invoice dtd.13.05.14 of Rs.58,494/- upon returning the said TV set to it.

 

3. Op is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. 

 

4. We also directed the Op to realize the said amounts within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, said amounts carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of retail invoice till the date of realization.

         

3. Op is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- being the cost of litigation to the Complainant.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 9^th April 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Smt.Rajeshwari.K.S, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.no.1	Original Manual guide
Doc.no.2 & 3	Email communications
Doc.no.4	Retail invoice dtd.13.05.14
Doc.no.5	Letter dtd.03.06.14
Doc.no.6	Letter dtd.06.06.14
Doc.no.7	Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT