COMPLAINTS FILED ON:12.06.2012
DISPOSED ON:31.07.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
31st DAY OF JULY-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos.1181/2012
Complainant | R.Panneer Selvam, No.10, Annaiah Reddy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-08. In person. V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY | RP Telebuy Sky Shop (P) Ltd., E-3, Manish Towers, 4th Floor, J.C.Road, Bangalore-560 002. Placed Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person presented this complaint seeking direction against the OP to refund the amount paid towards purchase of Basic Orbitrek amounting to Rs.9,000/- with costs of the proceedings on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3. In order to substantiate complaint averments, complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
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 22.01.2012, the complainant purchased a Basic Orbitrek from OP by paying an amount of Rs.9,000/- under Invoice No.BG1112/6701. That machine was not used even one day as the left wheel pedal was jammed and it was not in working condition, because of the same the complainant demanded for replacement of the new machine. Accordingly, a new machine was replaced on 15.02.2012 under Invoice No.BG1112/7455. That replaced machine was also not working properly as it was making loud noise. The complainant complained several times to OP since 25.02.2012 for replacement but no one has attended the complaint till date. From 26.03.2012 to 10.06.2012 the complainant waited for rectifying the defect but OP has not attended the problem. We have gone through the emails exchanged between the parties. The replaced machine is also defective one, the complainant could not make use of the same. Thus the act of Op supplying the defective Basic Orbitrek is an unfair trade practice and not attending the complaint with regard to the machine is deficiency in service. The very fact of Op remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.9,000/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and take back the machine supplied.
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 31st day of JULY-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
