M/s. Ontrack Electronics, V/S V.P. Babu - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2245/2008

V.P. Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Ontrack Electronics, - Opp.Party(s)

IP

27 Nov 2008

ORDER

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2245/2008

V.P. Babu						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Ontrack Electronics,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(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

Date of Filing:17.10.2008 Date of Order:27.11.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2245 OF 2008 V.P. Babu, K 62, 10th Cross, 4th Main, Lakshminarayanapuram, Bangalore 21. Complainant V/S M/s. Ontrack Electronics, No.2928/17, M.K.K. Road, Opp: Mariyappana Palya Park, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he has purchased mobile phone model LG-6100 from the opposite party on 05/04/2008. After buying the Camera Phone, photos of the function of his father taken, he could not get the photo snapped with the said phone. Then he went to the dealer and complained the matter. Opposite party directed the complainant to go to L.G Service Center and the LG Service Center told that for the said mobile there is no facility to print the photos. Again he went to dealer and told the matter and they said that they are not responsible. Complainant had given a written notice. For which a person by name Karthik called the complainant and enquired about the problem. Then they assured that phone will be replaced with another model and the model was not in stock. Till now the complainant could not get the replacement. The complainant submitted that the mobile instrument is having manufacturing defect from the day one of his purchase. Opposite party accepted the same but they could not rectify the mistake. It is also stated by the complainant that the set was sold for higher price but the actual selling price should have been Rs.2,699/- as advertised by the manufacturer in news paper and TV Media. Therefore, the complainant submitted that opposite party may be directed to compensate him and to pay the cost of the phone and expenses incurred. 2. Notice issued to opposite party by RPAD. The notice returned with an endorsement as not claimed and the case was posted on 26/11/2008. Complainant was present. Opposite party called out. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party. Opposite party even has not sent defense version by post. The notice issued to opposite party through RPAD was not claimed. Therefore, same was held as sufficient service and the opposite party was placed exparte. 3. Complainant was heard in person. He requested for giving direction to the opposite party to replace the mobile set. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter though notice sent by RPAD. It appears that opposite party has no defense to make, thats why the opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum. By the request of the complainant for replacement of the defect free mobile set is quite just and reasonable. His prayer deserves to be accepted. It is the duty of the opposite party to supply defect free goods to the customers. The opposite party should not allow the customer to feel that company is being indifferent to his concerns. Appropriate response and follow up is important. The opposite party who is a dealer shall not be defensive, he should have apologized for inconvenience caused to the customer. It is the duty of the opposite party to attend the customer immediately when the defect was noticed. The complainant is definitely entitled for replacement of a defect free LG-6100 mobile set from the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 4. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace and supply a defect free mobile handset LG-6100 to the complainant. The complainant has to surrender the old mobile instrument to the opposite party after getting the new set. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. 5. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.500/- as costs of the present proceedings from opposite party. 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.

Date of Filing:17.10.2008 Date of Order:27.11.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 2245 OF 2008 V.P. Babu, K 62, 10th Cross, 4th Main, Lakshminarayanapuram, Bangalore 21. Complainant V/S M/s. Ontrack Electronics, No.2928/17, M.K.K. Road, Opp: Mariyappana Palya Park, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he has purchased mobile phone model LG-6100 from the opposite party on 05/04/2008. After buying the Camera Phone, photos of the function of his father taken, he could not get the photo snapped with the said phone. Then he went to the dealer and complained the matter. Opposite party directed the complainant to go to L.G Service Center and the LG Service Center told that for the said mobile there is no facility to print the photos. Again he went to dealer and told the matter and they said that they are not responsible. Complainant had given a written notice. For which a person by name Karthik called the complainant and enquired about the problem. Then they assured that phone will be replaced with another model and the model was not in stock. Till now the complainant could not get the replacement. The complainant submitted that the mobile instrument is having manufacturing defect from the day one of his purchase. Opposite party accepted the same but they could not rectify the mistake. It is also stated by the complainant that the set was sold for higher price but the actual selling price should have been Rs.2,699/- as advertised by the manufacturer in news paper and TV Media. Therefore, the complainant submitted that opposite party may be directed to compensate him and to pay the cost of the phone and expenses incurred. 2. Notice issued to opposite party by RPAD. The notice returned with an endorsement as not claimed and the case was posted on 26/11/2008. Complainant was present. Opposite party called out. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party. Opposite party even has not sent defense version by post. The notice issued to opposite party through RPAD was not claimed. Therefore, same was held as sufficient service and the opposite party was placed exparte. 3. Complainant was heard in person. He requested for giving direction to the opposite party to replace the mobile set. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter though notice sent by RPAD. It appears that opposite party has no defense to make, thats why the opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum. By the request of the complainant for replacement of the defect free mobile set is quite just and reasonable. His prayer deserves to be accepted. It is the duty of the opposite party to supply defect free goods to the customers. The opposite party should not allow the customer to feel that company is being indifferent to his concerns. Appropriate response and follow up is important. The opposite party who is a dealer shall not be defensive, he should have apologized for inconvenience caused to the customer. It is the duty of the opposite party to attend the customer immediately when the defect was noticed. The complainant is definitely entitled for replacement of a defect free LG-6100 mobile set from the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 4. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace and supply a defect free mobile handset LG-6100 to the complainant. The complainant has to surrender the old mobile instrument to the opposite party after getting the new set. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. 5. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.500/- as costs of the present proceedings from opposite party. 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER Rhr.