Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/71/2014

Dr. Rallapalle Sindhu Sree, D/o. R. Jayachandra Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ganesh Steel and Gift centre, rep. by its authorized person - Opp.Party(s)

K.Chakravarthy, A. Sudarsana Babu

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:16.12.2014

Order Date: 08.04.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.71/2014

 

Between

 

Dr.Rallapalle Sindhu Sree,

D/o. R.Jayachandra Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 25 years,

Room No.313, S.V.Medical College,

P.G.Womens Hostel,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District,

Andrha Pradesh.                                                                               … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         Sri Ganesh Steel and Gift Centre,

            Rep. by its authorized person,

            No.16/1, Sarakki Main Road,

            J.P.Nagar, 1^st Phase,

            Bangalore,

            Karnataka State.

 

2.         Snap Deal Customer Support,

            Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its authorized person,

            Having its office at:

No.246, 1^st floor, Phase-3, Okhia Industrial Area,

New Delhi – 110 020.                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.03.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Chakravarthy, Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsels for the complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12(1) of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to refund the paid amount of Rs.4,753/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of payment, till realization 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant and 3) to pay the costs of the litigation.  

2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- That the complainant placed online order under ID No.2006148909 dt:25.04.2014 with opposite party No.2 for purchasing Maharaja White Line Thunder Personal Cooler from Tirupati. Opposite party No.2 dispatched the same through Blue Dart Surface. Opposite party No.2 purchased the said cooler from opposite party No.1 under Invoice No.75B263/14-15/906 dt:25.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.4,753/-. The cooler was delivered at Tirupati to the complainant under Ex.A2. But it was found totally in damaged condition, as such it was sent back for replacement. The complainant sought for replacement of the cooler under Ex.A4. But there was no response from the opposite parties. Opposite parties have taken back the damaged cooler. Later neither paid back its value nor replaced the cooler. Hence the complaint.  

3.  Notices were served on opposite parties 1 and 2 by post on 26.12.2014 and 30.12.2014 respectively, but they remained exparte even without appearance so far.

4.  Complainant filed her affidavit and written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A12.

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iii).  To what relief?

6.  Point No.(i):-  The complainant in her affidavit reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant purchased Maharaja White Line Thunder Cooler from opposite parties 1 and 2 by placing online order in ID No.2006148909. Opposite party No.2 purchased the said cooler from opposite party No.1 on 25.04.2014, under Ex.A1 and sent mail to the complainant under Ex.A2 for delivery of the cooler. As the cooler was found totally damaged, complainant asked the opposite party for replacement for which opposite party No.2 tendered apology under Ex.A5 and taken back the cooler, agreeing to provide alternate or to repay the cost of the cooler, but failed to comply with their promises, inspite of notice got issued by the complainant under Ex.A10, which was served on opposite parties 1 and 2 under Exs.A11 and A12. Section-2(1)(g) of the Act defines the word Deficiency as follows:

“deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contact or otherwise in relation to any service.

    

7.  In the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that on the order placed by the complainant, opposite party No.2 has supplied the Maharaja White Line Cooler to the complainant and delivered the same. When it was delivered, it is found that the cooler was in totally damaged condition, as such the complainant made correspondence with the opposite parties informing that the cooler was in damaged condition by the time it was delivered. On that opposite party No.2 tendered apology and taken back the cooler, undertaking to provide alternate or to pay back the cost of the cooler, so supplied. But they have miserably failed to comply with the promises made by the opposite parties.

8.  The condition of the cooler by the time it was delivered is totally damaged. Opposite party No.2 tendered apology for supplying damaged cooler and promised to provide alternate one or to pay back its cost, but he did not comply with his promise. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties, for the reasons best known, inspite of their correspondence and promises and apology, failed to either provide new cooler or to pay back the cost of the damaged cooler, which was taken back by the opposite party No.2. Thus they have made a false promise to the complainant for replacing the cooler and also pay back the cost of the cooler, as such the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency of service. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

9.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that as a prudent dealer and manufacturer both the opposite parties 1 and 2 are bound to provide a standard cooler with good quality and with proper functioning to its customers when placed order for purchase of such cooler. But admittedly the cooler supplied by opposite party No.2 was found in totally damaged condition, as such it was taken back by opposite party No.2, promising that it will be replaced or its cost will be paid back. But they failed to do so. The complainant being a consumer, when received the cooler in damaged condition, immediately informed the same to the opposite party No.2 who supplied the same, for which opposite party No.2 properly responded and tendered apology, then taken back the cooler, but the consumer though made correspondence by giving notice under Ex.A10 could not get the new cooler in the place of damaged cooler or could not get back the cost of the damaged cooler, as such the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the cooler i.e. Rs.4,753/- from the opposite parties and she is also entitled to the compensation and cost of the litigation. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant being a consumer is entitled to get back the cost of the cooler i.e. a sum of Rs.4,753/- and also entitled to damages and costs of the litigation and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay back Rs.4,753/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred and fifty three only) collected by the opposite parties towards cost of the damaged Maharaja White Line Thunder Cooler. The opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony caused to the complainant by providing damaged cooler, which was taken back by opposite party No.2 and so far they did not either replaced the cooler or paid back the cost of the cooler. Both opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the litigation. Both the opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the cost of the cooler i.e Rs.4,753/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 25.04.2014, till realization.         

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 8^th day of April, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 

PW-1: Dr. Rallapalle Sindhu Sree (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	A photo copy of Retail invoice vide invoice No.75B263/4-15/906. Dt: 25.04.2014.
2.	A photo copy of Mail by the second Opposite Party with regard to the delivery of the product. Dt: 02.05.2014.
3.	A photo copy of Mail by the second opposite party with respect to the pick up the damaged product. Dt: 06.05.2014.
4.	A photo copy of Mail by the second opposite party with respect to the alternate order. Dt: 30.05.2014.
5.	A photo copy of Mail by the second opposite party tendering apology. Dt: 06.06.2014.
6.	A photo copy of Mail by the second opposite party with respect to the reverse process. Dt: 09.06.2014.
7.	A photo copy of Mail by the second opposite party with regard to the return process and refund process. Dt: 27.06.2014.
8.	A photo copy of Mail by the second opposite party tendering apology for the inconvenience. Dt: 08.07.2014.
9.	A photo copy of Mail by the complainant making complaint with regard to the inaction by the second opposite party. Dt: 17.07.2014.
10.	Office copy of the legal notice caused by the complainant to the opposite parties with postal receipt. Dt: 15.09.2014.
11.	Acknowledgment card from the first opposite party.Dt: 19.09.2014.
12.	Mail made by the complainant by forwarding the copy of the legal notice to the second opposite party. Dt: 25.09.2014.

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.