Date of Filing      : 20-08-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal :  30-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE.

PRESENT: SRI P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, B.A., B.L PRESIDENT

SRI K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A., B.L., MEMBER

This the 30^th day of June, 2015

C.C.No .23/2014

BETWEEN:

Virigineni Narasimha Rao,

S/o. Malakondaiah,

Advocate,

aged 42 years, Hindu,

R/o. D.No.9-2-43, Gadiyaram Veedhi,

Near P.V.R. Girls High School.

Ongole, Prakasam District.                                                                            …    Complainant.

                                                            AND

1. The Branch Manager,

    Big C Mobiles Private Limited,

    Jyothi Plaza, Shop No.2,

    Kurnool Road, Ongole.

2. The  Managing Director

    Big C Mobiles Private Limited,

    Big C Tower, D.No.1-99/2/B,

    Plot No.2, Vitalrao Nagar,

    Madhapur, Hyderabad.                                                                              … Opposite parties.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT                             ::          SRI P. PAVAN KUMAR,

                                                                                                ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES                    ::          NONE

            This complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 coming on 25-06-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of   Sri Pasupulati Pavan Kumar, advocate for the complainant and   the opposite parties No1 and 2  called absent and  having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

1.         The breaf averments of the complainant as are fallows:-

            The complainant purchased a tab from the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is the head office of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant purchased the tab for Rs.11,200/-.  The complainant insured the same also.  The tab was stolen on 02.11.2013, The complainant gave a report to the police.  The complainant informed the opposite parties about the theft.  The opposite parties are the bound to release the amount, they agreed, but they did not do so.  The complainant got issued a legal notice also.  Hence, the complaint for payment of the value of the tab with compensation and costs.

2.         The opposite parties remained absent.

3.         Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency of service”?

4.         The complainant filed his affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A5.  Ex.A1 is the Original Bill, dated 26.02.2013.  Ex.A2 is the Meseva Receipt, dated 05.10.2013.  Ex.A3 is the Legal Notice, dated 29.01.2014.  Ex.A4 is the Postal Receipts dated 29.01.2014 (two in number).  Ex.A5 is the Reply Notice, dated 06.02.2014.

5.         POINT:-  The complainant filed this case for an amount of Rs.11,200/- covered by the bill under Ex.A1.  The complainant purchased a mobile, a Micro card, a tab pouch, screen guard and download equipment, under Ex.A1.  The complainant got issued a legal notice under Ex.A4.  The reply given by the opposite party is marked as Ex.A5.  In EX.A5, the opposite party contended that insurance was covered for the cost of the mobile i.e., Rs.7,905/-, as shown in Ex.A1.  The opposite party contended further that the negligence of the complainant is also seen, in the manner in which the article was lost.  The complainant contended that when he parked his vehicle in front of a hotel, the article was lost.  The manner in which the article was lost, also reveals, a little negligence on the part of the complainant.  However, the opposite party admitted its liability to the cost of the article.  As such, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.7,905/-, the value of the mobile tab and not to the accessories.  The complainant is entitled to the above amount with interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint till realization along with the costs of Rs.2,000/-.  The rest of the claim is dismissed.  The point is held accordingly.

6.         In the result, the complaint is allowed, ordering the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs.7,905/- with interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint i.e.,  20.08.2014, till realization along with costs of Rs.2,000/-.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy above order.  

              Dictated to the Shorthand-writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30^th day of June, 2015.

MEMBER                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

  COMPLAINANT                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTIES

           NONE                                                                                                        NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:-

Ex.A1: 26.02.2013 :   Original Bill. 

Ex.A2: 05.10.2013 :   Meseva Receipt. 

Ex.A3: 29.01.2014 :   Legal Notice.

Ex.A4: 29.01.2014 :   Postal Receipts (two in number). 

Ex.A5: 06.02.2014 :   Reply Notice

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY :-   NIL

                         PRESIDENT