BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 07 January 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA: HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.302/2016
(Admitted on 03.09.2016)
Mr. Deepak,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o Seetharam,
B.M Hill, Bolwar,
PutturKasba village,
PutturTaluk, D.K.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. MK)
VERSUS
Proprietor
Techno Computers,
G-2 Meridian Guru Plaza,
Near Bata Showroom,
K.S.R.T.C Main Road, Bejai,
Mangalore.
……. Opposite Party
(Opposite Party : Ex parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA:
I. 1. The above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the seeking direction to return advance amount of Rs. 1,500/ with interest 12% and return mobile with new battery and to pay Rs. 10,000/ as damages with 12% interest from the date of application till realization from the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant has furnished his mobile I phone 5 to the Opposite Party Techno Computers Shop for repair on 21.01.2015. The Opposite Party has issued job card for the same and assured that it will be repaired within one month. After one month, the Opposite Party has not been repaired and again told to come after one month. In this way up to 2016 march the complainant frequently visited Opposite Parties shop, Opposite Party has not been repaired the mobile phone. Finally July 2016, the Opposite Party has not returned it and every time told the complainant to come after few days. But July 2016 the Opposite Party not repaired the mobile, and returned mobile with bad condition. Its battery has been swollen, hence, it cannot be closed as battery is bad and in dangerous condition. On one side the Opposite Party has not repaired the mobile after taking more than one year time, and on the another side damage the battery of the mobile. Hence, the complainant has not taken mobile in that condition from the Opposite Party. Hence this complaint.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD.Inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA, hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party.
In support of the above complaint, Mr. Deepak, (CW1)the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex.C1 to C3. Opposite Party Ex parte.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) & (ii): Affirmative.
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):
The complainant Deepak filed affidavit evidence swearing to complainant pleaded facts. The Ex.c1 is the original service Bill issued by Opposite Party to complainant on 21.01.2015 to repair the mobile I Phone 5. Ex.C2 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party and Ex.C3 is the RPAD cover returned to the complainant with endorsement of “REFUSED”. Hence, the Opposite Party refused to received the legal notice issued by the complainant. Further, after filing this said complaint filed by the complainant before this forum, the forum issued version notice to the Opposite Party to appeared before this forum and to file version, this notice also returned with an endorsement of “REFUSED’ In spite of service of legal notice and this forum notice the Opposite Party not turned up. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party not appeared nor contested the case till this date. The material evidence placed before the Fora is not contradicted nor controverted by the Opposite Party. The unrebutted evidence requires no further proof. Apart from the above, we also observed that the complainant handed over the mobile handset to the Opposite Party for service repair as per Ex.C1 , as mentioned approximate service charges is Rs.9,000/ and received advance amount of Rs.1,500/ on 21.01.2015 and remarks also mentioned in Ex.c1. further, the Opposite Party not appeared and not produced mobile handset before forum to prove the case against the complainant’s allegation and even according to complainant version Opposite Party has not repaired the mobile handset after taking more than one year time and also damage the battery of the mobile, battery is bad and in dangerous condition. Hence, it is sufficient to construe as there is a deficiency in service from the Opposite Party. Hence it is fit case considering that to return advance amount for a sum of Rs.1,500/, return mobile I phone 5 with new battery and to pay for a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards compensation as mental agony, harassment and loss from the Opposite Party on the allegations of deficiency in service. Further to pay Rs. 5,000/ towards cost and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. Hence we answer the Point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
Point No. (iii): In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to return advance amount for a sum of Rs.1,500/(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) and return mobile I phone 5 with new battery to the complainant. Further to pay for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and to pay for a sumRs. 5,000/(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost and litigation expenses incurred by the complainant. The Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount with in stipulated time, the Opposite Party directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 6 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of January 2017.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI) (SMT. C.V. SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW 1:Mr. Deepak.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 21.01.2015: Job service Card.
Ex.C2: 10.08.2016: Legal Notice.
Ex.C3: Returned RPAD.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Documents Marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated:07.01.2017. PRESIDENT
