COMPLAINT FILED: 25-04-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 06-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 6TH AGUGST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.962/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr.M.N.ShahidS/o. Late.N.Abdul Hameed,Aged about 48 years,R/at No.22, Berlie Street,Langford Twon.Bangalore – 560 025.Advocate – Sri.C.S.Kumar V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Sangeetha Rep.By its Managing Director,#37, Sanidhi Road, Basavanagudi,Bangalore – 560 004.Also At:M/s.Sangeetha,#47, J.C.Road,Bangalore –560 002.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 refund the cost of the mobile phone and pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and publicity issued by the OP in the month of June ‘2008 with regard to Money Back Policy thought of purchasing two mobile hand sets one for Rs.19,134/- of model Nokia – 2GB and another Nokia – 6275 for Rs.8,557-69. As per the promise OP is expected to give Rs.34,680/- under Money Back Policy not only that OP promised to give Air Ticket to Delhi and Camera, DVD player and Ipod. Though complainant waited patiently for four months there was no response from the OP. Thus complainant felt unfair trade practice as well as 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. He issued legal notice to OP, there was no response again. Under the circumstances complainant is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bonafide and reasonable. Hence, OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he being lured away with the advertisement propaganda issued by the OP who floated a scheme in the name and style Money Back Policy purchased two Nokia mobile hand sets worth Rs.28900/- documents to that effect are produced. According to the complainant OP promised to refund the said Money Back and also give two Air Tickets to Delhi in addition to Camera, DVD player and Ipod. Though complainant invested his hard earned money in purchase of the said sets on 10-06-2008 there was no response from the OP. He patiently waited for nearly four months or so. In the meantime he repeatedly contacted the OP there was no response. Ultimately, he caused legal notice on 09-02-2009 copy of the said notice is also produced. Again there was no response. <br /> <br /> 5. According to the complainant OP having received Rs.28900/- passed an acknowledgement. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed document. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is the quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. The non- appearance of the OP even after the due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. Complainant invested his hard earned money under the scheme but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP apart from the Money Back value of Rs.34,680/-. OP is expected to give gifts like Camera, DVD player and Ipod. They were not given. Under such circumstances we find there is a proof of unfair trade practice also. <br /> <br /> 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case we find justice will be met by directing the OP to pay Rs.28,900/- the bill amount. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following : -<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay Rs.28,900/- to the complainant with litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> <br /> (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 6th day of July 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />