Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/10/879

R.H.Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Stonarts.D, Reptresented by Its Director Rochan Jindal - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2010

ORDER


BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN,Ph:22352624
No:8, 7th floor, Sahakara bhavan, Cunningham road, Bangalore- 560052.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/879

R.H.Anand
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Stonarts.D, Reptresented by Its Director Rochan Jindal
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Anita Shivakumar. K 2. Ganganarsaiah 3. Sri D.Krishnappa

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

Complaint filed on: 20-04-2010 Disposed on: 29-06-2010 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052 C.C. NO.879/2010 Dated of this 29th day of June 2010 PRESENT Sri.D.Krishnappa, President Sri.Ganganarasaiah, Member Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member Complainant: - R.H.Anand, No.40, 5th Main, Between 6th and 7th cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03 V/s Opposite party: - Stonarts.D., 31/35, Nanjappa layout, Adugodi, Bangalore-30 Represented by its Director Rochan Jindal. O R D E R Smt.Anita Shivakumar.K., Member The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against vendor of stone articles and decorative tiles who is OP in this complaint. Complainant visited OP’s shop and after seeing the articles displayed there, he expressed his interest to purchase a stone leaf mural which was cost of Rs.10,998/-. Complainant paid Rs.3000/- as an advance amount towards the same on 7-12-2009 through credit card. At the time of booking, OP promised to supply the said article within four weeks. But OP failed to deliver the article as promised. After lapse of 4 weeks complainant approached several times to OP’s shop to know about the delivery of the article one or the other reasons OP extended time, which was not expected by the complainant. Later OP started avoiding the complainant and OP did not deliver the article. Complainant sent a request letter to OP through RPAD on 30-3-2010 calling upon to deliver within one week or to refund his amount with interest. OP had refused to receive the same which was returned with postal shara as “Not claimed”. Hence, the complainant seeks relief from the forum to direct the OP to refund his money with 18% interest and Rs.5000/- compensation. 2. Twice notices sent to the OP shop are returned with postal shara as “not claimed” and another occasion as “information delivered”. It is considered as service held sufficient. OP was absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP as placed exparte. 3. In the course of enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating as stated in the complainant. The complainant alongwith the complainant has produced the copy of the receipt for having advance paid towards article, copy of the letter of to OP, copy of the postal acknowledgements and bank slip. Heard arguments of complainant, who was in person and perused the records. 4. On perusal of material documents which are placed before us, complainant placed an order for stone article by paying Rs.3000/- as advance through the credit card on 7-12-2009. But OP has not delivered the article as promised within 4 weeks to the complainant. Complainant sent letter to OP on 30-3-2010 calling upon for refund of the amount for non-delivery of booked article. OP neither delivered it nor replied to the said letter. It shows negligence about the customers and unfair transaction is made by the OP. It indicates that OP is deficient in his service and he is liable to compensate the complainant. 5. These facts have not been specifically denied by the OP inspite of opportunity given to him but remained absent and also failed to submit its statement of objections to rebut the evidence of the complainant. In the absence of specific denial by the OP, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged and un-controverted. We find no reason to disbelieve the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, we pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is allowed. Op is directed to refund of Rs.3,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till it is paid to the complainant and he shall repay the same within 30 days from the date of this order. Op shall pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost. Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 29th June 2010. Member Member President




......................Anita Shivakumar. K
......................Ganganarsaiah
......................Sri D.Krishnappa