BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 31/2013.
THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath, M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sri. Praveen Kumar S/o. P. Amaravathi, Age:
Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Gurugunta village, Tq. Lingasugur. District Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- Tarun Enterprises, Nokia Authorized Dealer,
Shop Nos 5 & 6, Bellam Complex, Beside Ram Mandir, Station Road Raichur- 584101.
Date of institution :- 02-05-2013.
Date of disposal :- 30-08-2013.
Complainant represented by Sri. C.K. Basavaraj Nayak, Advocate
Respondent is Ex-parte.
ORDER
By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant purchased a Samsung mobile hand set with 16 GB for Rs. 9,800/- from the Respondent having warranty period of one year for the hand set and six months for battery and charger and 90 days for memory card. However the said mobile set from the very next day of the purchase itself found having software defect and it was given to Respondent to carry out the repair. But the Respondent failed to carry out the repair which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. Therefore the complainant got issued legal notice to the Respondent calling upon them to set right the defect in the mobile hand set or to replace with new one. On service of the said notice the Respondent did not care to respond. Hence the complainant seeking compensation from the Respondent as prayed for.
3. On service of notice the Respondent having failed to appear before this Forum, was placed Ex-parte.
4. The complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on three documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3.
5. Arguments heard on complainant’s side.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent against him.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?
3. What order?
7. Our answer on the above points are as under:
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) Partly in the affirmative.
(3) As per final order:
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
8. There is no dispute with regard to the case of the complainant as the Respondent has not challenged the same by appearing before this Forum. However the complainant to prove his case produced his affidavit-evidence as well as the Tax Invoice issued by the Respondent for the purchase of mobile hand set by the complainant which is marked as Ex.P-1.
9. As the complainant has asked for replacement of the mobile hand set purchased by him to entitle for the said relief he must prove that the mobile hand set purchased by him is having manufactural defect. But the complainant has not produced any evidence of an expert which proves that the mobile hand set is having manufactural defect. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the replacement of mobile hand set purchased by him with a new one. However as the complainant’s allegations that the Respondent failed to rectify the defect found in the hand set purchased by him being not challenged, stands proved and therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation for deficiency in service on the part of Respondent. Accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
10. As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Respondent, he is entitled for compensation towards the same along with cost of the proceedings which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:-
10. As per order below:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 3,000/- from Respondent towards deficiency in service.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the Respondent.
Respondent is given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amount.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-08-2013)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
