IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 415/09 DATED 23.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant M.R.Raghuveeera, Advocate, No.820, 7th Cross, T.K.Layout (Janathanagar), Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. B.P.Rajesh, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Manager, S.M.A. Inpex Pvt. Ltd., No.672/A, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, 7th Block West, Jayanagar, Bangalore-82.<br /> 2. M/s Asia Telecom and Television Service and Distributor, No.1950, Kothwala Ramaiah Road, <br /> New Hongkong Bazaar, <br /> Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (O.P.1 – EXPARTE and By Sri. S.Shrikrishna, Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 14.12.2009<br /> Date of order : 23.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 9 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking a direction to the first opposite party to pay back the cost of the mobile amounting to Rs.5,300/- and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.<br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant has purchased mobile phone bearing EMEI No.354038020190247 for a sum of Rs.5,300/- on 28.02.2009 from Archana’s Singapore Calls Shoppe situated at No.2043, Rajkamla Talkies Road, Dhanvanthri Road Cross, Mysore. After purchase the phone, started giving trouble and the complainant approached the second opposite party authorized service agent, but did not do proper service. The complainant find first opposite party sold the mobile phone to him is defective and failed to give proper service. It amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> 3. The first opposite party in spite of due service of the notice, remained absent and hence, set exparte.<br /> 4. The second opposite party denied certain allegations in the complaint and admitted that, many times the complainant approached for repairs of the mobile phone and on all occasions, free service has been provided. Further, it is contended that, the first opposite party has withdrawn the service centre of this opposite party. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents. On the other hand, the second opposite party has filed his affidavit. We have heard the arguments of both the advocates for the complainant and second opposite party and perused the records.<br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Point no. 1:- Prayer of the complainant is, to direct the opposite party to pay back the cost of the mobile and also the compensation. The first opposite party is the Manager of certain firm or company situated at Bangalore. Though, in the 5th paragraph of the complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that, first opposite party sold the mobile to the complainant which is defective, quite contrary to the said allegation, in the second paragraph, it is stated by the complainant that he has purchased the mobile phone, which is the subject matter of the case from Archana’s Singapore Calls Shoppe situated at No.2043, Rajkamal Talkies Road, Dhanvanthri Road Cross, Mysore. Hence, the claim made by the complainant in 2nd and 5th paragraphs of the complaint, are quite inconsistent. At the cost of repetition, in second paragraph of the complaint, the complainant alleges that he has purchased the mobile phone from the shop situated at Mysroe, whereas in the 5th paragraph, it is alleged that first opposite party situated at Bangalore sold the mobile phone to the complainant. The complainant has produced the cash bill regarding purchase of the handset from the shop situated at Mysroe, as alleged in second paragraph of the complaint. The said shop situated at Mysore is not a party to the present proceedings. From the said cash bil,l including the allegation in the second paragraph of the complaint, it is made out that the complainant purchased the mobile from the shop at Mysore, but without filing the complaint against said shop, made the first opposite party a party making inconsistent allegation that, the first opposite party sold mobile to the complainant. To substantiate the fact alleged in the 5th paragraph of the complainant that, the complainant as alleged, the first opposite party sold the mobile to the complainant, the complainant has not produced any documents.<br /> 9. As regards, second opposite party service centre, no prayer is made in the complaint. However, in the third paragraph of the complaint, it is alleged that all the times, the second opposite party did not properly serve the said phone. But, from the copy of the notice that, the complainant had sent to the second opposite party, it can be seen that, the second opposite party did the service and gave back the mobile and after one or two days, same problem repeated. Hence, fact stated in the notice and alleged in the complaint are inconsistent. Even otherwise, the second opposite party has contended that, now it is no more service centre. Moreover as noted above, no relief is sought by the complainant against the second opposite party.<br /> 10. Considering the facts and the material on record, the complainant has failed to prove that he purchased the mobile from the first opposite party and there is deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. <br /> 11. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is in negative. <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 23rd December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />