<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON:14-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 14TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.961/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Venkat Raghavulu,Flat G2, V.S.Enclave, West Wing, 6G Cross,Balaji Layout, 5th Main,Kaggadaspura, C.V.Raman Nagar,Bangalore – 560 033.Party in personV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Pentagon Services,Sathi Complex, 64 Mission Road,Bangalore – 560 027.Advocate – Sri.R.V.RameshKumar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<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 replace the Music System pay a compensation and for such other relief’s 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 /> 2. Complainant purchased AIWA Music System in the year 2005 for a total cost of Rs.22,377/-. Within 6 months he experienced certain mechanical error with the said system. CD got struck several times. He took the system to OP for repairs not once but for several times i.e., 4 to 5 times. Though OP attended to the said repairs. But it was unable to detect the defect and cured the same. Again he left the said system with OP for repair on 25.05.2008 result is one and the same. As he could not get the relief he again took the system to OP in August ‘2008 and gave it for repairs. Thereafter neither OP returned the said system to him after attending the defect nor compensate him. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not handled the said Music System properly. As and when he brought the said system for repairs it was attended to. The said system was 3 years old, some spare parts are replaced. Then the OP kept the said system, ready for delivery but complainant did not approach them. OP tried its best to trace out the residential address of the complainant but could not succeed. As the complainant shifted his residence they are unable to deliver the same. The other allegation made in the complaint are false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service of the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. and produced Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. 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 /> 6. 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 /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one AIWA Musical System in the year ‘2005 for a total cost of Rs.22,377/-. He had hardly used the system for 6 months, in the meantime it use to display mechanical error and CD got struck. Hence he took the said system to the OP the authorized service center for Sony Products. He made several complaint with regard to the said defect namely on 25-05-2006, 10-11-2006 and in the year 2007, 28-05-2008, 16-08-2008. Though OP attended to the said repairs but it is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. The corresponding documents are produced by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. Having not satisfied with the service extended by the OP complainant again took the said system for repairs on 28-05-2008. The result is one and the same. Then he left it for repairs on 16-08-2008 even at that time OP replaced some parts and collected huge amount for both towards the cost of the spare parts and repair charges that too for no fault of the complainant. With all that OP is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Thereafter for the reasons best known to OP neither it returned the system nor paid him a compensation. <br /> <br /> 9. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents produced. It appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.<br /> <br /> 10. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. OP never disputed receipt of the said system for repair between the year 2006 to 2008. According to OP it repaired the said system but it could not deliver the same. OP tried to delivery the system to the residential address of the complainant, but as complainant has shifted his residence they could not deliver it. What is the effort OP made to delivery the system to the complainant is not known. There is no such evidence to that effect. <br /> <br /> 11. Under such circumstances the bald defence of the OP in a case of like nature rather alone cannot be believed. When OP admits about the non-delivery of the said system for all these days in our view that hostile attitude of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Naturally the complainant for no fault of his must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. <br /> <br /> 11. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to delivery the said system to the complainant after due repairs to the satisfaction of the complainant and pay some token compensation with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to return the Musical system given by the complainant for repairs after detecting the defect and curing the same to the satisfaction of the complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> 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 her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> NRS <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />