COMPLAINTS FILED ON:27.03.2012
DISPOSED ON:30.06.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
30th DAY OF JUNE-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.657/2012
Complainant | Nagesh Kumar K.R. 182, Lingappa Estate, Adiganahalli, Tarahunse Road, Rajanukunte, Bangalore-560 064. In person V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY | On Track Mobiles, No.1, Site No.193, Bellary Main Road, Bytarayanapura, Bangalore-560 094. Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund an amount of Rs.3,200/- paid towards the cost of the mobile set purchased on 26.02.2012 on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. OP in spite of service of notice, failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed affidavit evidence to substantiate complaint averments.
4. Arguments from complainant’s side heard.
5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that the complainant has purchased mobile phone from OP on 26.02.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.3,200/- under invoice No.182. The mobile purchased was not working properly, the complainant went to the Op to get the problem resolved, after one week of purchase of the mobile on 04/03/2012. He asked the Op to replace the handset with a good one and OP has not mentioned the Battery number in the invoice and even it does not consists of TIN no etc. OP has not responded properly, he has stated that the bill provided is original and further he has stated that they are not the persons to solve the problem. It may be noted that the invoice issued by OP for having sold the mobile is silent regarding Battery number and TIN thus it is doubted as to whether the invoice issued by OP is the original one. When the mobile purchased is not working properly and within a week the complainant had taken back the mobile handset, it was the duty of the Op to attend the service or to replace the mobile but he has not properly responded. Supplying defective mobile is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The very fact of OP remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that Op is admitting the claim. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.3,200/- with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.
OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,200/- the cost of the mobile and take back the mobile set from the complainant and pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of JUNE-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
