Date of Filing:16.11.2009<br /> Date of Order: 01.06.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2677 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. Dinesh <br /> S/o Venkataramanappa,<br /> R/at RE-404,<br /> Poorva Revera, Airport Road,<br /> Marathahalli,<br /> Bangalore -37. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Favara Car Accessories <br /> Shop No.3, No.115/3,<br /> G.K.R. Arcade,<br /> Opp. M.S.Ramaiah Apartment,<br /> Near Brook Field,<br /> ITPL Road, Kundalahalli,<br /> Bangalore-560037. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case as under, the complainant has purchased Sony Audio System and Speakers to his car from the opposite party vide bill No.657 dated 12-9-2009 for a sum of Rs.9,400/-. The Complainant submitted that, the opposite party supplied duplicate Audio System and speakers. The opposite party tried to cheat the complainant. The Complainant came to know the actual price of the Audio system is Rs.7,000/-, but the opposite party has taken 9,400/- from the complainant when questioned the opposite party initially had agreed to rectify the same by replacing the system. But, the opposite party is not responding to the complainant properly. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The complainant is constrained to file this complaint. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.34,900/- with interest.<br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defense version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased Sony Audio system and speakers for Rs.9,400/-. The system was given to the complainant as selected by him. The complainant is making false and baseless allegations. The complainant has not produced any material to establish that the Audio System is duplicate one. The complainant was at liberty to enquire in other shops about the price before purchasing the system. The complainant can not now turn around and say that the opposite party has collected more amounts. There is no allegation regarding manufacturing defect in this system. Therefore, there is no question of replacing the same. The opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of the opposite party also filed affidavit evidence. Heard, the arguments on both the side. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is entitled for the relief? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The complainant has produced Cash Bill for Rs.9,400/- dated 12-9-2009 to show that he has purchased Sony Audio Systems from the opposite party Shop. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant has purchased the Audio System from the opposite party shop. The main grievance of the complainant is that the System purchased by him is duplicate one but, the complainant has not produced any evidence or documents to establish his allegation that Audio System purchased by him is duplicate one. The complainant has not taken any steps to send the Audio System to the Sony Company to find out whether the system purchased by him from the opposite party shop is duplicate or original. In the absence of any proof or report from the Sony Company it is not possible to come to the conclusion that Audio System purchased by the complainant is duplicate one. The complainant never made any allegation about the manufacturing defect of the system. Therefore, in the absence of any pleading in respect of defect in the system the question of replacement or demanding compensation does not arise. The second grievance of the complainant is on enquiry in other shops he came to know the actual price of the Audio System is Rs.7,000/- where as the opposite party has taken Rs.9,400/- from him. This grievance of the complainant can not be taken as a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Before purchasing any item the customer has to enquire the market rate. In the market and select the items and shops and then purchase the goods with a competitive price. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party has collected more than the MRP price, so in the absence any pleading or grievance the complainant can not say that the opposite party has committed deficiency of service. Prices of the items may defer from shop to another shop. Therefore, the complainant should have taken care before purchasing the item. The complainant has not produced even warranty card before this Fora. The Complainant has not taken any steps to produce the Audio System before this Forum for inspection, so under these circumstances there is absolutely no legal evidence before this Fora to come to the conclusion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant fail to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite party therefore, question of granting compensation does not arise. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />