<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 28th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2603/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.N.Suresh Kumar,S/o Late Narayanaiah,Aged 37 years,Advocate, No.2, 2nd Floor,1st Cross, RMV 2nd Stage,Bhoopasandra,Bangalore – 560 094.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Sangeetha,(Dealers in Mobile Phones)Show Room at # 284/1,2nd Main, Sampige Road,18th Cross, Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 003.Rep: by its Proprietor.Advocate – Sri.S.N.Madhu<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.16,020/- and a reasonable compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one Nokia mobile phone from OP on 06.07.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.13,300/-. At that time OP promised by way of advertisement that they will offer 120% cash back on any mobile instrument. As regards complainant mobile it will come to Rs.16,020/- and they have also promised to deliver Handy Com worth Rs.14,400/- and also a pair of wrist watch worth Rs.1,500/-. Complainant being lured away with the said advertisement purchased the said mobile set. Thereafter complainant didn’t receive any of the gifts as promised and they failed to deliver the articles even after the lapse of two to six weeks. Complainant made repeated requests and demands but it went in futile. He got issued legal notice on 20.09.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP of course they did issue the advertisement during the anniversary sale but due to unavoidable circumstances and non co-operation by the Gift Junction which was the promoter of the said scheme they could not send the said articles to the complainant. They are ready to refund the cost of the mobile and take back the same. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations are baseless. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Nokia mobile phone from OP in its anniversary sale on 06.07.2008 for a total cost of Rs.13,300/-. According to the complainant under the said anniversary sale advertisement OP promised to offer 120% cash back on any mobile instrument on its purchase which will come to Rs.16,020/- and they have also promised to deliver Handy Com, wrist watch within 2 to 3 weeks from the date of purchase. On going through the evidence and the version of the OP this fact is not disputed or denied by the OP. Hence it can be taken as admitted.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though he waited patiently for 6 weeks OP failed to deliver the above said articles and failed to refund Rs.16,020/-. He made repeated requests and demands it went in futile. He got issued the legal notice on 20.09.2008. Copy of the said notice is produced. Again there was no response. So the evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused him both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP is that due to unavoidable circumstances and due to non co-operation from the promoter of the said scheme Gift Junction they are unable to keep up the promise made to the complainant and other customer and the said scheme was later on withdrawn and they are ready to refund the cost of the mobile and take back the mobile. So this defence itself speaks loudly about the deficiency in service and admission of the unfair trade practice as well as both monetary loss and mental agony caused to the complainant. So no more discussions is required. If the promoter Gift Junction withdrawn its support it is for the OP to take suitable action against it. Non co-operation of the promoter has nothing to do with complainants’ rights.<br /> <br /> 9. Having taken note of facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that complainant is able to establish the deficiency in service. OP having received the cost of the mobile failed to keep up its promise made in the advertisement. It has rather duped the customer by giving false advertisement in the paper. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case wherein complainant deserves the relief to some extent. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.16,020/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 them 28th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />