COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25.01.2011
DISPOSED ON: 22.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
22nd JULY 2011
PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.2967/2010
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY | Mrs. Jyothi G. Prabha, No.172, 12th Main, H.S.R.Layout, Sector -5, Bangalore. (Inperson) V/s. M/s. L.G.Electronics, No.93, T.K.N.Mansion, Opposite to BMTC K.H.Road, Bangalore – 560027. Manager. (Advocate: Rajesh.A.) |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction against OP to replace the Micro Oven of the same model L.G.Intello Cook Micro oven & to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, on the allegations of deficiency on the part of the O.P.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows.
On 29-12-2007 the complainant purchased one LG Intello Cook Microw oven Model No.M.C.808 WARADXEIL.S. No. 7100 x CR 006170 from O.P. show room at 3rd block Jayanagar Bangalore. Complainant paid Rs.12,490=02 to O.P. The receipt issued by O.P. is produced. Complainant found that within six months of its purchase the said Oven was completely rusted from both inside and door panel. Immediately complainant made the complaint to the service centre of the O.P. at double road as well as K.R.Road, Bangalore. The service people visited the complainants house and took the photo of the Oven and agreed to attend what has been complained by the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests and complaints failed to take any action. Now the Oven is out of warranty and O.P. is insisting for payment for the replacement of the part. On 10-12-2010 complainant sent a written complaint to OP requesting OP to solve the problem. OP being a reputed Company has sold such a sub standard product for such a higher price using rusted material. Inspite of repeated requests, email & correspondences. OP failed to respond. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against OP. Under the circumstance she is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.
3. On appearance OP filed the version mainly contending that the LG Intello Cock Microwave is out of warranty. The said product had only one year warranty from the date of its purchase. Complainant has not at all registered a complaint at any of the service centre of OP. The first complaint of the complainant registered on 30-6-2010. On the said complaint the service engineer had verified the said Oven and Warranty Card, since the warranty on the said Oven was lapsed, requested the complainant to pay repair charges. The Complainant refused to pay the said charges. Hence the said complaint was cancelled for not approving
the estimated charges. The complainant has no right to claim replacement for free of costs. The complainant purchased the Oven knowing that Oven was offered only warranty of one year. OP was not bound to rectify the defects without costs. The problem arose in the said Oven after lapse of warranty period. The complaint is time barred complaint. As per complainant problem arose in the said Oven within six months from the date of purchase 29-12-2007. i.e. in the month of June 2008. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 prescribe limitation of two years for admission of a complaint by the consumer. In the present complaint, complainant has not at all explained nor any prayer for condonation of delay has been made before this Forum. There is no Consumer dispute between the complainant and OP. Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced copy of the complaint dated:10-12-2010, copy of the advance receipt issued by OP dated:29-12-2007, certified copy of the passport, photo of the Oven, front page of the user manual, e-mails, remarks of the public about LG Microwaves. On behalf of OP S.Gopal Krishna, Branch Service Manager filed his affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced citations. Heard arguments from both sides.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitledfor the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1:- In Affirmative.
Point No.2:- In Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
8. At the outset it is not in dispute that on 14/8/2010 the complainant purchased a mobile hand the make Sony Ericson W20i-ZyLo- bearing IMEI No. 012383001142864 from O.P.3 who is a dealer of O.P.1, manufacturer. O.P.2 is the authorized service center of O.P.1. Complainant paid Rs.8,205/- to O.P.3 being the cost of said mobile hand set. Which is inclusive of tax. To substantiate this fact complainant has produced the copy of the invoice dt:14-8-2010 issued by O.P.3. Within few days of its purchase the said hand set developed display problem and after often the screen used to go blank. Complainant approached O.P.3 dealer to rectify the problem. O.P.3 in turn handed over the hand set to O.P.2 who is a authorized service center for repair. After 15 days O.P.2 delivered back the said mobile hand set to the complainant on 16-9-2010 by replacing the mother board with new IMEI No.01238300088592-7. The work order and delivery challans issued by O.P.2 substantiates the same. Though O.P.3 promised the complainant that the problem is rectified; to the surprise of the complainant within one day the said mobile hand set persisted with the same defects. Again complainant approached O.P.3 and narrated the defects. Which was repeated in the hand set. After 4 days O.P.3 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with an assurance that the mobile hand set will function properly. But the same problems were repeated for the second time. Complainant left with no other option sought for replacement of new mobile set with O.P.3. But O.P.3 replied that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the mobile hand set it will be again replaced if it is hand over to O.P.3. When O.Ps. failed to rectify the defects for the second time complainant got issued the legal notice to all the O.Ps. on 19-11-2010. Inspite of service of notice there was no response. Hence complainant approached this Forum for the necessary reliefs.
9. The mobile hand set sold to the complainant is of manufacturing defects. OPs are unable to repair it. Hence complainant unable to use the hand set. Complainant is entitled for free service or replacement within the warranty period. The complainant has approached OPs well within the warranty period. The service given by the dealer or the service center is not of satisfactory. Hence complainant sought for replacement. O.P.3 informed that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the mobile, it will be replaced if it is deposited with them. Already complainant has parted with mobile hand set for about 20 days. Complainant being doctor by profession must have under gone lot of inconvenience without having any contacts or communication. Inspite of repeated requests and service of notice O.Ps. failed to rectify the defects or give replacement. The mobile set sold to the complainant is a defective one. Refusal to replacement amounts to deficiency in service. Both the dealer as well as the manufacturer are liable to the complainant. From the absence of O.P.1 & 3 we can draw the inference that O.P.1 & 3 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in two. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile set along with litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed in part.
OP 1 and 3 are directed to refund Rs.8205/- being the value of the mobile hand set to the complainant and take back the mobile hand set make Sony ericsson from the complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
Complainant against O.P.2 is dismissed.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order failing which complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complainant till realisation.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of July 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RK.
8. At the outset it is not in dispute that the complainant lurd away with the colourfull presentations made by O.P.2, director of Bangalore seted of management got enrolled to the distance education in Bachelor of business administration with O.P.1 who is a coutre for distance education. On 6-10-2009 and paid a sum of Rs.4,155/- to O.Ps. The receipt issued by O.P.1 is produced O.P.1 assigned. Admission card No.8040 and identity card OP has assured to dispatch the study material within one month from the date of admission. Inspite of repeated requests O.Ps. failed to send the study materials even in the month of December 2009. Hence complainant got issued legal notice on 30-12-2009 requesting OP to refund the amount along with compensation. On 5-1-2010. OP sent a letter to the complainant asking for requisition along with original admission card and identity cards. On 20-1-2010 complainant complied the same. Copies of the requisition and postal acknowledgement card is produced by the complainant for having sent the same. Instead of refund complainant received application form and time table for examination copies of application form and time table are produced. On 10-3-2010 OP sent a letter refusing to refund the feel. Hence complainant approached this forum for the necessary reliefs.
9. As against the case of the complainant the defence of the O.P.1 is that it has given provisional approval to O.P.2 as a acade3mic partner institution for Bharatidasan university with a condition that provisional approval can be withdrawn at any time and students admitted will be transferred to near by appeared institution if students strength is less than ten. Initially complainant and two more candidates alone joined at Bangalore school of Management centre for BBA course. Hence they are directed to continue their study at Udaya Centre. There is no basis for this defence O.P.1 has failed to produce any materials to show how many students were admitted, what should be the strength, when O.P.1 informed were admitted, what should be the strength, when O.P.1 informed the complainant to continue his study at Udaya centre. Hence same cannot be receipted. Further it is contended by O.P.1 that standing committee meeting held on 12-12-2010 rectified to revise the syllabus for BBA course through distance with effect from academic year 2009-2010. The Syndicate of O.P.1 at its meeting held on 18-2-2010 also approved the decision of SCAA. The presence persons were identified for preparation of study materials in accordance with the syllabus approved by the Syndicate. This is the actual reason for delay to dispatch of study materials for BBA course. In the absence of any material it is difficult to accepts the contention of the O.P.1 that there should be society day time between dispatch of study materials and examination. Further it is contended by O.P.1 that study materials for newly framed syllabi have been prepared and sent to Udaya educational society Vijaynagar Bangalore on 3-2-2010. Again there is no supportive documents are produced by O.P.1. hence in the absence of any materials we cannot unable to accept the contention of O.P.1 that it has said study materials on 3-2-2010. hence the contention of O.P.1 that complainant himself declared to discontinue the course and not eligible for refund has no merits. O.P. has not part with any service to the complainant. hence OP is not entitle to retain the fees.OP having accepted fees of Rs.4155/- from the complainant on 6-10-2009 has failed to supply the study materials till. Dec. 2009 for the examination scheduled in the month of March 2010 and sent hall ticket and application for examination. This act of O.P. amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Inspite of service of notice O.P.2 remained absent. We can draw the inference that O.P.2 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under the circumstance we are of the view that complainant is entitled for refund of full paid along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is a allowed in part. O.P.1 is directed to refund Rs.4155/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order failing which complainant is entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 6-10-2009 to till the date of realisation.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of July 2011.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
RK.
COMPLAINT FILED ON: 25.01.2011
DISPOSED ON: 22.07.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
22nd JULY 2011
PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.2967/2010
COMPLAINANT OPPOSITE PARTY | Mrs. Jyothi G. Prabha, No.172, 12th Main, H.S.R.Layout, Sector -5, Bangalore. (Inperson) V/s. M/s. L.G.Electronics, No.93, T.K.N.Mansion, Opposite to BMTC K.H.Road, Bangalore – 560027. Manager. (Advocate: Rajesh.A.) |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, seeking direction against OP to replace the Micro Oven of the same model L.G.Intello Cook Micro oven & to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, on the allegations of deficiency on the part of the O.P.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows.
On 29-12-2007 the complainant purchased one LG Intello Cook Microw oven Model No.M.C.808 WARADXEIL.S. No. 7100 x CR 006170 from O.P. show room at 3rd block Jayanagar Bangalore. Complainant paid Rs.12,490=02 to O.P. The receipt issued by O.P. is produced. Complainant found that within six months of its purchase the said Oven was completely rusted from both inside and door panel. Immediately complainant made the complaint to the service centre of the O.P. at double road as well as K.R.Road, Bangalore. The service people visited the complainants house and took the photo of the Oven and agreed to attend what has been complained by the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests and complaints failed to take any action. Now the Oven is out of warranty and O.P. is insisting for payment for the replacement of the part. On 10-12-2010 complainant sent a written complaint to OP requesting OP to solve the problem. OP being a reputed Company has sold such a sub standard product for such a higher price using rusted material. Inspite of repeated requests, email & correspondences. OP failed to respond. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against OP. Under the circumstance she is advised to file this complaint for the necessary reliefs.
3. On appearance OP filed the version mainly contending that the LG Intello Cock Microwave is out of warranty. The said product had only one year warranty from the date of its purchase. Complainant has not at all registered a complaint at any of the service centre of OP. The first complaint of the complainant registered on 30-6-2010. On the said complaint the service engineer had verified the said Oven and Warranty Card, since the warranty on the said Oven was lapsed, requested the complainant to pay repair charges. The Complainant refused to pay the said charges. Hence the said complaint was cancelled for not approving
the estimated charges. The complainant has no right to claim replacement for free of costs. The complainant purchased the Oven knowing that Oven was offered only warranty of one year. OP was not bound to rectify the defects without costs. The problem arose in the said Oven after lapse of warranty period. The complaint is time barred complaint. As per complainant problem arose in the said Oven within six months from the date of purchase 29-12-2007. i.e. in the month of June 2008. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 prescribe limitation of two years for admission of a complaint by the consumer. In the present complaint, complainant has not at all explained nor any prayer for condonation of delay has been made before this Forum. There is no Consumer dispute between the complainant and OP. Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced copy of the complaint dated:10-12-2010, copy of the advance receipt issued by OP dated:29-12-2007, certified copy of the passport, photo of the Oven, front page of the user manual, e-mails, remarks of the public about LG Microwaves. On behalf of OP S.Gopal Krishna, Branch Service Manager filed his affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced citations. Heard arguments from both sides.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant
proved the deficiency in service
on the part of the OP?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitledfor the reliefs now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1:- In Affirmative.
Point No.2:- In Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
8. At the outset it is not in dispute that on 14/8/2010 the complainant purchased a mobile hand the make Sony Ericson W20i-ZyLo- bearing IMEI No. 012383001142864 from O.P.3 who is a dealer of O.P.1, manufacturer. O.P.2 is the authorized service center of O.P.1. Complainant paid Rs.8,205/- to O.P.3 being the cost of said mobile hand set. Which is inclusive of tax. To substantiate this fact complainant has produced the copy of the invoice dt:14-8-2010 issued by O.P.3. Within few days of its purchase the said hand set developed display problem and after often the screen used to go blank. Complainant approached O.P.3 dealer to rectify the problem. O.P.3 in turn handed over the hand set to O.P.2 who is a authorized service center for repair. After 15 days O.P.2 delivered back the said mobile hand set to the complainant on 16-9-2010 by replacing the mother board with new IMEI No.01238300088592-7. The work order and delivery challans issued by O.P.2 substantiates the same. Though O.P.3 promised the complainant that the problem is rectified; to the surprise of the complainant within one day the said mobile hand set persisted with the same defects. Again complainant approached O.P.3 and narrated the defects. Which was repeated in the hand set. After 4 days O.P.3 handed over the mobile hand set to the complainant with an assurance that the mobile hand set will function properly. But the same problems were repeated for the second time. Complainant left with no other option sought for replacement of new mobile set with O.P.3. But O.P.3 replied that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the mobile hand set it will be again replaced if it is hand over to O.P.3. When O.Ps. failed to rectify the defects for the second time complainant got issued the legal notice to all the O.Ps. on 19-11-2010. Inspite of service of notice there was no response. Hence complainant approached this Forum for the necessary reliefs.
9. The mobile hand set sold to the complainant is of manufacturing defects. OPs are unable to repair it. Hence complainant unable to use the hand set. Complainant is entitled for free service or replacement within the warranty period. The complainant has approached OPs well within the warranty period. The service given by the dealer or the service center is not of satisfactory. Hence complainant sought for replacement. O.P.3 informed that there is a technical problem in the mother board of the mobile, it will be replaced if it is deposited with them. Already complainant has parted with mobile hand set for about 20 days. Complainant being doctor by profession must have under gone lot of inconvenience without having any contacts or communication. Inspite of repeated requests and service of notice O.Ps. failed to rectify the defects or give replacement. The mobile set sold to the complainant is a defective one. Refusal to replacement amounts to deficiency in service. Both the dealer as well as the manufacturer are liable to the complainant. From the absence of O.P.1 & 3 we can draw the inference that O.P.1 & 3 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in two. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile set along with litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed in part.
OP 1 and 3 are directed to refund Rs.8205/- being the value of the mobile hand set to the complainant and take back the mobile hand set make Sony ericsson from the complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
Complainant against O.P.2 is dismissed.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order failing which complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complainant till realisation.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of July 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RK.
8. At the outset it is not in dispute that the complainant lurd away with the colourfull presentations made by O.P.2, director of Bangalore seted of management got enrolled to the distance education in Bachelor of business administration with O.P.1 who is a coutre for distance education. On 6-10-2009 and paid a sum of Rs.4,155/- to O.Ps. The receipt issued by O.P.1 is produced O.P.1 assigned. Admission card No.8040 and identity card OP has assured to dispatch the study material within one month from the date of admission. Inspite of repeated requests O.Ps. failed to send the study materials even in the month of December 2009. Hence complainant got issued legal notice on 30-12-2009 requesting OP to refund the amount along with compensation. On 5-1-2010. OP sent a letter to the complainant asking for requisition along with original admission card and identity cards. On 20-1-2010 complainant complied the same. Copies of the requisition and postal acknowledgement card is produced by the complainant for having sent the same. Instead of refund complainant received application form and time table for examination copies of application form and time table are produced. On 10-3-2010 OP sent a letter refusing to refund the feel. Hence complainant approached this forum for the necessary reliefs.
9. As against the case of the complainant the defence of the O.P.1 is that it has given provisional approval to O.P.2 as a acade3mic partner institution for Bharatidasan university with a condition that provisional approval can be withdrawn at any time and students admitted will be transferred to near by appeared institution if students strength is less than ten. Initially complainant and two more candidates alone joined at Bangalore school of Management centre for BBA course. Hence they are directed to continue their study at Udaya Centre. There is no basis for this defence O.P.1 has failed to produce any materials to show how many students were admitted, what should be the strength, when O.P.1 informed were admitted, what should be the strength, when O.P.1 informed the complainant to continue his study at Udaya centre. Hence same cannot be receipted. Further it is contended by O.P.1 that standing committee meeting held on 12-12-2010 rectified to revise the syllabus for BBA course through distance with effect from academic year 2009-2010. The Syndicate of O.P.1 at its meeting held on 18-2-2010 also approved the decision of SCAA. The presence persons were identified for preparation of study materials in accordance with the syllabus approved by the Syndicate. This is the actual reason for delay to dispatch of study materials for BBA course. In the absence of any material it is difficult to accepts the contention of the O.P.1 that there should be society day time between dispatch of study materials and examination. Further it is contended by O.P.1 that study materials for newly framed syllabi have been prepared and sent to Udaya educational society Vijaynagar Bangalore on 3-2-2010. Again there is no supportive documents are produced by O.P.1. hence in the absence of any materials we cannot unable to accept the contention of O.P.1 that it has said study materials on 3-2-2010. hence the contention of O.P.1 that complainant himself declared to discontinue the course and not eligible for refund has no merits. O.P. has not part with any service to the complainant. hence OP is not entitle to retain the fees.OP having accepted fees of Rs.4155/- from the complainant on 6-10-2009 has failed to supply the study materials till. Dec. 2009 for the examination scheduled in the month of March 2010 and sent hall ticket and application for examination. This act of O.P. amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Inspite of service of notice O.P.2 remained absent. We can draw the inference that O.P.2 admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under the circumstance we are of the view that complainant is entitled for refund of full paid along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is a allowed in part. O.P.1 is directed to refund Rs.4155/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order failing which complainant is entitle for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 6-10-2009 to till the date of realisation.
Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of July 2011.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
RK.
