Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/474/2014

Uma A Girennavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager. Intex technologies Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

L.A.Pathade.

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

 

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.42500/- towards cost of the mobile set, damages for mental agony and for physical harassment with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.      The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is an practicing advocate and for her professional requirements she intend to purchase a mobile set as such the complainant approached the respondent.2, during that time the respondent.2 induced the complainant and made her to purchase Intex mobile set manufactured by therespondent.1 on 27.02.2014. The respondent.3 and 4 are the authorized consumer care center working for respondent.1 Under the invoice no.3905 dtd.27.02.2014 the complainant purchased the mobile set for Rs.7501/-. Within the use for a period of 2-3 days the hand set start troubleshooting viz., lack of space for storage of memory, unable to use face book account, non operating of e-mail transactions, false text memories etc. Hence, the complainant approached the respondent.3 and 4 i.e. authorized consumer care center of respondent.1 and explained the defects. Though the respondent.3 listened to the complaint of the complainant did not chosen to attend &set right the same. Hence, the complainant deprived of using the same for which purpose she has purchased the same. Hence, complainant apart from subjecting to harassment also subjected to financial loss and loss of manual working days. Even for the legal noticedtd.23.04.2014 the respondents did not chosen either to reply or to comply the same which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.      In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.3 appeared in person. While the remaining respondents despiteservice of notice remained absent. Hence, they were placed exparte. The respondent.1 filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments in toto and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the answering respondent denied cause of action, maintainability of the complaint, nature of the complainant, profession of the complainant and the loss and sufferings suffered by the complainant and also the cause of action for the complaint. Further the answering respondent taken contention that since the matter involves detailed evidence to decide the matter in question dispute the jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate the same in summary proceedings under CP Act. Further averred complainant is guilty of suggestion falsi and suppressio veri and made allegation of deliberate concealment of various material facts with an ulterior  motive to varasity to satisfy false and frivolous claims in the absence of the cause of action with sole intention to harass the respondent by quoting the apex courts citations denied the deficiency in service& also denied and disputes the loss, sufferings and claims made. Interalia prays for dismissal of the complaint

4.      On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

5.      Both have admits sworn to evidence, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively
2. Affirmatively.
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

6.      On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the purchase of handset by the complainant from the respondent.2 manufactured by the respondent.1 and respondent.3 and 4 are the authorised customer care centre of respondent.1.

7.      Both have contended their respective cases vehemently. Even than the respondents deposited a sum of Rs.7500/- the value of the handset in question by way of pay order in the name of complainant. While the complainant is not satisfied with the deposit of the amount contending that the respondent has taken scrupulous contentions in the written version making false allegations against the practicing advocate and when the respondent strongly oppose all the allegation made by the complainant in her complaint why he has deposited amount irrespective of the contention taken by the respondent. By making these strong opposition the learned counsel for complainant insist this Forum to impose heavy cost in order to curb the attitude of there spondent in future course of his business. Though the submission of learned counsel for complainant might be proper on latent it is usual practice of the parties who appear before the court of law to oppose the contentions and allegations made by the opposite parties in the dispute. As allegations made by the respondents the complainant also made allegation against the respondent with regard to the product irrespective of subjective proof of allegations made with regard to manufacture of the mobile set. For the mere reason the respondents have taken coercive contentions in the absence of corroborative or otherwise rebuttal evidence placed by the parties the court while adjudicating the matter suemoto cannot impose punishment to the parties unless the allegation are proved with appulsive and cogent evidences. However in the instant case though the respondent has taken all the   defensive defences in a straight jacket before commencement of evidence came forward and deposited the admitted liability. However since the respondent had dragon the complainant to approach this Forum and to file the instant complaint in that instance certainly the complainant is entitled for compensation to certain extent for the reason this being a consumer complaint and being a summary proceedings and speedier prosecution with inexpensive litigation with adequate relief it is not proper to punish either the parties by imposing heavy cost or damages. However the complainant has established her case of deficiency in service against the respondents accordingly complainant is entitled for the relief.

8.      In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 affirmative.

9.      Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following; 

Order

 

          The complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is at liberty to receive the cheque amount deposited by the respondents towards the refund of the cost of the mobile set. Accordingly the respondents.1 to 3 are jointly and severally to pay Rs.1000/- towards the compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from there on till realization.

 

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 27^th day of    April 2015)

                          Member                    President