Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

cc/1725/2007

Manjunath. H. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Srikanth, Manager, QuestNet India, - Opp.Party(s)

Jagadish.H.K. Jagadish & Associates,

20 Feb 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. cc/1725/2007

Manjunath. H.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Srikanth, Manager, QuestNet India,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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

Date of Filing:17.08.2007 Date of Order: 20.02.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1725 OF 2007 Manjunath.H, No.368/A, 6th Main Road, Nagendra Block, BSK-III Stage, Bangalore-560050. Complainant V/S Srikanth, Manager, Quest Net India, No.303, Prestige Centre Point, III Floor, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This complaint is filed for recovery of Rs.27,600/-. The case of the complainant is that, he brought a Diamond Ganesh Pendant from QUESTNET India on 5th January-2007 worth Rs.24,840/-, shipping charges Rs.2,300/-, registration fee Rs. 460/-, total amount of Rs. 27,600/- through online. Complainant did not receive the pendant in time. He made several calls and got reply that it will be dispatched now and then. After a long wait he registered a complaint on 25th July-2007. Complainant wants his money back against the opposite party which is promoting unfair trade practice or delayed shipment of the product. After registering the complaint company couriered the product, the complainant did not accept. Therefore, the complainant wants his money back with interest. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in his appearance and submitted defense version. The opposite party admitted that, complainant had purchased Diamond Ganesh Pendant on 5th January-2007 through online. The product was dispatched to the complainant on 17/7/2007. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service. Company does not provide option for return of money. Therefore, the opposite party has requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount? REASONS 5. I have gone through the complaint, defense version and the documents produced by the complainant and the opposite party. The facts are almost admitted. It is admitted that the complainant booked Diamond Ganesh pendant on 5th January 2007 through online. He did not receive the article and he has made several calls even though he has not received the article in time. After long wait he registered the complaint on 25th July-2007. Thereafter, the opposite party dispatched the product on 17/7/2007, the product was refused by the complainant. The refusal of the product by the complainant is justified because he has booked the product on 5th January-2007 by paying the amount through online and he has made number of telephone calls and waited for so many months. As per the terms and conditions of contract the opposite party has to deliver the article within 30 days of the order. At clause 5.2 of the terms and conditions it is very clear that “delivery will be made as soon as possible after your order is accepted and in any event within 30 days of your order. Delivery will be by way of courier or other similar service”. So by this rule it is very clear that, the opposite party has violated this rule and the opposite party has not kept to its promise. The order was made in the month of January-2007 and the opposite party has taken more than 6 months time to deliver the article through courier. Therefore, naturally the complainant is justified in refusing to accept the delivery. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It becomes obligation and duty of the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.24,840/- paid by the complainant for Diamond Ganesh Pendant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.24,840/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a from the date of payment till the realization. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER