Karnataka

Bidar

CC/70/2016

Manohar S/o Sharanappa Malage - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shanthakumar

28 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

 

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 70/2016

 

                                                                                          Date of filing : 17/09/2016

 

                                                                                       Date of disposal : 28/03/2017

 

 

 P R E S E N T:        (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                   (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:         Manohar, S/o Sharnappa Malge,

                                           Age: Major, Occ: Teacher,  

                                        C/o Channabasava Nilaya,

                                           Plot no.18, Shivanagar, M.S. road,

                                           Near M.S.,Tq. & Dist.Bidar.

               

                                        

              

 

 

                                       ( By Shri. Shantkumar,Advocate )

 

 

                                                    VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-            The Managing Director,

                                        Q.S. Hot Deals,     

                                          (Div of Rajnish Hot Deals Pvt. Ltd.,

                                           BOMBAY.

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 

 

 

 

                                        (  In person )

                                               

 

::   J U D G M E N T  ::

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

 

                    This complaint is filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986, against the O.P which  reads  as hereunder.

2.            Complainant is resident of Bidar district, he is working as Assistant Teacher in the School.   The complainant claims that, the O.P. had published an advertisement in the  Prajawani, Kannada news paper about promising to give a X1 Touch Screen mobile hand-set for Rs.2,199 with other gifts.  Accordingly the publication given by the O.P., the complainant had booked for a mobile hand-set online. Thereafter the box containing the said mobile was received by the complainant thorough courier at Bidar, vide cash memo no. D-37180,                 dated: 24/06/2016 with code no. 908 and he paid a sum of Rs.2,498 at the time of delivery.   After the receipt of the said mobile hand-set, the complainant opened the box  to use the mobile.  But, surprisingly by the complainant   found that, the said mobile was not working.  Hence, the complainant approached Jai Sri Ram Communication, Shivanagar, Bidar, for repair of the mobile hand-set and paid Rs.290/- for repair. Despite of the reapir, the mobile hand-set was not working.  The complainant requested  the O.P. over the phone, since the mobile hand-set sent was not working,  to refund the sum of  Rs.2,498/-to the complainant.  But, the O.P has failed to return the amount.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum claiming compensation from the O.P.

 

3.               The O.P. has not appeared before this Forum, but,  has sent a reply letter through post, wherein he stated that, it was informed to the complainant prior to booking of the mobile hand-set that any legal activity arose against the company,  place of adjudication would be Mumbai only. The O.P. further stated that, at the request made by the complainant about the non function of the mobile hand-set, we had credited cash of Rs.3,500/- to complainant’s account no. 0440101009651 on 30/12/2015 at Canara Bank, Branch Arakere and the account confirmation was also received with Mr. Manohar that the amount is been successfully received by him.    But the complainant even after receiving the amount till date has not returned the parcel to the company.  On enquiry the complainant about the  product he had informed the O.P. that the product was with his Advocate and when O.P. contacted the Advocate namely Mr. Mahesh he was not ready to talk to the O.P. and finally the O.P. has  not yet received the product back.

 

4.                  The complainant has filed  objections to reply letter sent by the O.P. stating that, the contents of the reply letter and documents filed are not admitted by the complainant.  The complainant’s name is Manohar only whereas it is mentioned in the reply letter as                      Manohar A.M. and also name of  Advocate is wrongly mentioned as C.Mahesh whereas the complainant’s Advocate name is Shantkumar.  The O.P. has wrongly stated that  a sum of  Rs.3,500/- was deposited in the account of  Manohar on dated 30/12/2015 whereas the account number of the complainant is 62377315965 with the SBI, Br.Bhalki.   The O.P. stated in reply letter that a sum of Rs.3,500/- was credited to Canara Bank account   no.0440101009651, dated 30/12/2015.  The account number mentioned by the O.P. pertains to Mumbai Canara Bank and this account number does not pertain to the complainant.  

 

5.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?

 

 

2. What order ?

 

 

 

6.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.   In the affirmative.

               2. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                       :: REASONS ::

7.            The corollary of events mentioned above goes to prove that, the complainant had placed orders with the O.P. for a mobile phone handset and the same was delivered at Bhalki in Bidar district against a payment of Rs.2498/-.  The said handset being found defective, the complainant had made a feeble attempt to rectify the mistakes locally unsuccessfully.   Thereafter the complainant had informed by E.Mail date.12.08.2016 regarding defective handset to the O.P. but, on no response had approached this forum.

 

8.            The opponent without appearing personally had sent a letter claiming to have refunded a sum of Rs.3500/- to one Manohar A.M. in his Canara Bank A/c No.044010100965/.  Arakere Branch, which was admitted by said Manohar and further he had revealed to have kept the mobile set with his advocate Sri. M. Mahesh who has remained unresponsive.  The O.P. has submitted the copy of bank challan evidencing such refund.

 

9.                The complainants’ bank account is with State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhalki bearing No.62377315965 from which it is evident that, no such amount was ever credited to his account. Further, it is inconceivable that, the O.P. has refunded a sum of Rs.3500/- against a receipt of Rs. 2498/-.  The transaction appears to be with some other person having identical name for which the opponent is liable wholly.  That apart, after receipt of message, the opponent has not made correspondence with the complainant to ascertain the truth, which is a clear deficiency of service.  We therefore hold point No.1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

:: ORDER ::

   

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P. is directed to pay back a sum of Rs.2,498/-

together with  6% interest p.a. calculated from the date of delivery i.e. 24.06.2016 till date of realisation.  Repair charges being out of complainants’ own volition are not reimbursable.

3. The O.P. has to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) towards compensation and Rs.500/-(Five hundred) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. Four weeks time is granted to comply this order.

 

 

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of March-2017)

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.      

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Courier receipt date: 24.06.2016.
2. Ex.P.2- Repair receipt date: 29.06.2016.
3. Ex.P.3- E correspondence of complainant (copy).  
4. Ex.P.4-Tax information sheet of opponent.

5.   Ex.P.5- Copy of Pass Book of complainant A/C No.62377315965

              S.B.H. Bhalki.

 

Document produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Ex.R.1- Copy of Bank Challan.

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.     

sb