Date of Filing: 13.08.2009 Date of Order: 21.12.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 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: 1969 OF 2009 Ramesh Kumar, S/o Late Hanumantharayappa, R/at Annaya Muniswamy Nilaya, C.N. Palya, Nagasandra, Bangalore-560 073. Complainant V/S M/s Apcolite Trading Company, A-2/16, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, Represented by its Director. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of Rs.58,000/- with interest and costs. The facts of the case are that, as per the advertisement in the news paper the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party executed an agreement and received a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of cash, Rs.15,000/- by way of D.D and Rs.1,000/-, in all a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards trainers fee and tube light choke machine worth Rs.5,000/-. As per the agreement the complainant has prepared the chokes and the opposite party supplied raw materials to the complainant worth about 100 materials. The said material was found 80 materials and the same was informed to the opposite party. As per the instructions of the opposite party, the complainant prepared and manufactured totally 20 pieces and the same was inspected and found correct and taken to Delhi for delivery and out of which, 8 pieces found OK and 12 pieces were rejected without assigning any reasons and the opposite party had not paid the amount assuring that the amount will be paying in the next month. On 05/07/2006 the complainant sent 20 pieces of chokes and they were inspected and found correct. On 05/08/2006, as per the telephonic conversation, the complainant had sent 20 pieces of chokes through courier and the same was received by the opposite party. The complainant requested for payment. The opposite party requested the complainant to wait another two days for making payment. After two days the opposite party did not make payment and gave false assurances to make payment. The opposite party intentionally publishes false attractive matter in the news paper and collects money from the public and giving assurance to the public with intention to make wrongful gain. In spite of that the opposite party was due a sum of Rs.58,000/- together with interest at 20% p.a for willfully and defrauding the complainant by not making payment. The complainant issued legal notice on 12/12/2007 requesting to make payment and after receiving the said notice the opposite party did not make any payment till today. The opposite party issued reply notice on 21/12/2007 denying the allegations made in the notice and also opposite party had agreed to make compromise. But till today the opposite party has not made any payment. As per the assurance given by the opposite party, the complainant sent a choking machine on 13/08/2008. But the opposite party did not made a payment to the complainant in spite of several telephonic conversations. The complainant has filed a criminal case against the opposite party before the Magistrate Court which is pending before the VII ACMM in PCR No.17609/2008. Hence, the complaint. 2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice was returned with an endorsement as unclaimed and the same is held as sufficient service and the opposite party placed exparte. REASONS 3. Perused the complaint and documents. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. Even though served with notice, the opposite party has not claimed the notice and said endorsement was taken as sufficient service under the law. There is absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the case put up by the complainant. The complainant has paid total amount of Rs.36,000/- to the opposite party for the machine and the machine is not working properly as per the commitment and assurance given by the opposite party. The complainant has sent back the machine through courier to the opposite party. Even though received the said machine, the opposite party did not make repayment of the amount or cost of the machine. Therefore it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is bound to refund the amount received from the complainant towards the cost of the defective machine. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The complainant being a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is entitled for the relief. It is just, fair and proper to order the opposite party to refund Rs.30,000/-, the cost of the machine received from the complainant. The complainant has claimed Rs.58,000/- from the opposite party. This amount includes expenses of his travel, accommodation etc.,. The complainant is not entitled for these amounts in this proceeding. The complainant has also claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation. Again it is not a case to grant compensation. The ends of justice will be met in ordering the refund of cost of the machine. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order the complainant is entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment/realisation. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER rhr.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
