By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.100/- being the advance amount received towards the delivery of battery by the opposite party or to deliver the battery to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.6,000/- as taxi charge and loss of work and cost of the proceedings.
2. The complainant's case in brief as follows:- On 23.03.2013 the complainant paid Rs.100/- to the opposite party as advance price of SGH C No.170 Battery to his mobile phone and booked the battery with opposite party. The total price of Battery is Rs.215/-. The opposite party promised the complainant to deliver the Battery on 02.04.2013. The opposite party directed the complainant to accept the Battery on 02.04.2013 itself. On 02.04.2013, the complainant due to fever hired a taxi Jeep from Kattikulam and came to Kalpetta after covering 45 Kms and asked the opposite party to deliver the Battery. But the opposite party informed the complainant that the Battery is not arrived in their shop and asked the complainant to come over there after one week. The opposite party do not know the exact date of arrival. On 11.04.2013, the complainant again visited the shop of opposite party and demanded the Battery. But opposite party failed to supply the Battery. The complainant visited the shop of the opposite party 4 occasions but did not get the Battery. So there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and aggrieved by this, the complainant filed this complaint for redressal of his grievances.
3. On receipt of the complaint, Notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party denied the entire allegations of the complaint. The opposite party admitted the receipt of Rs.100/- towards the Booking Charge of SGH C No.170 Battery for the Samsung Mobile set. The opposite party contented that the opposite party had informed the complainant at the time of booking itself that the SGH C No.170 Battery production is stopped by the company and it will be supplied only when old stock comes in their hands. The complainant gave the advance amount of Rs.100/- to the opposite party at his own compulsion and the opposite party was not willing to accept it. The opposite party then informed the complainant by telephone that such a numbered Battery did not come to their shop even after one month and to receive back the advance amount of Rs.100/-. Thereafter the complainant came to the shop of opposite party and threatened the opposite party with dare consequences. The manufacturing company of Samsung Mobile is not impleaded as opposite party in this case. So there is no bonafides in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On going through the complaint, version, chief affidavit and documents by both parties, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and the complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked. The complainant is cross examined by the opposite party and nothing is brought out in favour of opposite party. Then the complainant's evidence closed and posted for opposite party's evidence. The opposite party did not turned up for evidence and the opposite party's counsel reported no instruction. Therefore the opposite party is set ex-parte. The complainant produced Ext.A1 Receipt No.271 dated 23.03.2013 issued by the opposite party towards the receipt of Rs.100/- as advance booking and towards the supply of Battery. That is admitted by the opposite party in the version. The other contention of the opposite party is not proved by the opposite party by adducing evidence. The opposite party remained Ex-parte and nothing is brought out to disprove the case of complainant. When the acceptance of advance amount of Rs.100/- is proved, the non supply of Battery to the complainant is a deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. If such a Battery is not available, the opposite party would have taken steps to return the advance amount to the complainant with proof. But such steps are not taken by the opposite party. The reason for the non supply of Battery is best known to the opposite party. So there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party for which the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favor of complainant, the opposite party is liable to pay the advance amount together with cost and compensation.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only to the complainant being the advance amount along with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupess One Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party is directed to pay altogether Rs.1,600/- (Rupees One Thousand and Six Hundred) only to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the opposite party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per anum till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of April 2014.
Date of Filing:12.08.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Rajan. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt. Dt:23.03.2013.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
