Sangeetha V/S manjunath B R - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/250

manjunath B R - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangeetha - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Feb 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/250

manjunath B R						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sangeetha						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 250/2009 COMPLAINANT Mr. Manjunath. B.R., S/o. Late. B.C. Rama Reddy, Aged 32 years, No. 1, Ground Floor, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Sangeetha, # 284/1, 2nd Main, Sampige Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. Rep. by its Proprietor. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.12,544/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who promised to offer 120% cash back on the purchase of any mobile instrument during the relevant scheme, thought of purchasing one Sony Ericsson mobile phone model W580i. Complainant purchased the said set on 04.07.2008 for a sum of Rs.10,454/-. OP has also promised to deliver complementary gift like Handy Com worth of Rs.14,400/-. Though complainant waited patiently for more than 2 to 6 weeks OP never kept up its promise. Then complainant got issued the legal notice on 19.09.2008. Again there was no response. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the said notice. Service of notice as refused is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP by floating a scheme wherein it promised to offer 120% cash back on the eve of purchase of any mobile instrument, not only that it has also promised to deliver a complementary Handy Com worth of Rs.14,400/-. Complainant purchased Sony Ericsson mobile phone from OP on 04.07.2008 at a total cost of Rs.10,454/-. The document to that effect is produced. Complainant was expecting the payment of 120% cash back which comes to Rs.12,544/- and also Handy Com of worth Rs.14,400/-, but OP never kept up its promise. Complainant waited patiently for 2 to 6 weeks, there was no response. Then complainant caused the legal notice on 19.09.2008. The copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response. 5. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-participation of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against the OP. Hence he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,544/- towards 120% cash back offer. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 250/2009 COMPLAINANT Mr. Manjunath. B.R., S/o. Late. B.C. Rama Reddy, Aged 32 years, No. 1, Ground Floor, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Sangeetha, # 284/1, 2nd Main, Sampige Road, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 003. Rep. by its Proprietor. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.12,544/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP, who promised to offer 120% cash back on the purchase of any mobile instrument during the relevant scheme, thought of purchasing one Sony Ericsson mobile phone model W580i. Complainant purchased the said set on 04.07.2008 for a sum of Rs.10,454/-. OP has also promised to deliver complementary gift like Handy Com worth of Rs.14,400/-. Though complainant waited patiently for more than 2 to 6 weeks OP never kept up its promise. Then complainant got issued the legal notice on 19.09.2008. Again there was no response. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP refused to accept the said notice. Service of notice as refused is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement and propaganda issued by the OP by floating a scheme wherein it promised to offer 120% cash back on the eve of purchase of any mobile instrument, not only that it has also promised to deliver a complementary Handy Com worth of Rs.14,400/-. Complainant purchased Sony Ericsson mobile phone from OP on 04.07.2008 at a total cost of Rs.10,454/-. The document to that effect is produced. Complainant was expecting the payment of 120% cash back which comes to Rs.12,544/- and also Handy Com of worth Rs.14,400/-, but OP never kept up its promise. Complainant waited patiently for 2 to 6 weeks, there was no response. Then complainant caused the legal notice on 19.09.2008. The copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response. 5. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non-participation of the OP leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though complainant invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the hostile attitude of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service against the OP. Hence he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,544/- towards 120% cash back offer. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.