COMPLAINT FILED: 25.04.2011
DISPOSED ON: 09.06.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
9th DAY OF JUNE-2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.718/2011
Complainant | C.V.Kripesh Krishnan No.32, 8th Main, Ganesh Block, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore-560 096. In-person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | Star Bazar, Golden Heights, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010. Exparte |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
1. This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party to refund Rs.299/- towards the cost of the flask, compensation of Rs.10,000/-along with interest and litigation cost totally Rs.11.350/- on the allegations of the deficiency of service.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
On 05.02.2011 the complainant purchased a Sorelle space pot (Flask) from the OP Star Bazar for his 6th month old baby to store hot water within a month of purchase the said flask developed rust in the inner layer and could not be used for storing hot water because it used to get contaminated and could have caused serious health hazards to his baby. The complainant went back to the OP for an exchange of the said product on 6th March 2011 but the OP declined to exchange saying they cannot replace or refund the amount. Despite of repeated requests when the OP failed to exchange with new flask or to refund the amount the complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complainant for the necessary reliefs.
3. On registration of this complainant notice is sent to the OP. In spite of service of notice, the OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP is placed ex-parte.
4. To substantiate the complainant averments, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced the bill issued by the OP.we have perused the unchallenged affidavit evidence and the document produced by the complainant. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The complainant having paid Rs.299/- is unable to use the said sorelle Space pot (flask) for his 6th month old baby for storing hot water. Since it developed rust within a month of its purchase in the inner layer. He could not use the same because it may cause serious health hazards to his baby. In spite of request of the complainant on 06.03.2011 i.e., within one month of its purchase for exchange, OP refused the same stating they cannot replace or refund the amount. This act of OP amounts to deficiency service on its part. From the absence of OP in spite of service of notice, leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitle for refund of amount paid along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed in part.
The OP is directed to refund Rs.299/- being the cost of the Sorelle Space Pot(flask) and take back the said flask from the complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.
(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 09th day of June 2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
CS.
