Date of filing : 17-06-2010 Date of order : 11-10-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 178/2010 Dated this, the 11th day of October 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Dayananda Mallya, C/o.Canara Juice and Cream Parlour, } Complainant M.G.Road, Kasaragod. (In Person) 1. The Manager, On Dot Couriers and Cargo Ltd, } Opposite parties Ceyel Building, Near Old Bus Stand, Kasaragod. Po. 2. Sandeep Malhotra, CEO. Homeshop.18, Nakamichi Techno Pvt.Ltd, 284 Sulthan Sadain part.2, Lane No.3, West Endmarg,Saibvlajab Road, New Delhi.110030. (Exparte) O R D E R SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER This complaint is filed Mr. Dayananda Malliya alleging deficiency in service against opposite party No.1. His case is that he purchased a mobile set worth `2,999/- from 2nd opposite party on 16-06-2010. At the time of purchase 2nd opposite party promised that if the complainant is not satisfied with the mobile he will get refund or replacement of the mobile set on it’s return to the seller. The complainant was not satisfied with the mobile set. So he sent it to the second opposite party through 1st opposite party, the courier service on 19-06-2010 i.e, within three days of its purchase. But it was not reached to the seller, 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant enquired the matter with 1st opposite party but there was no reply. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to1st opposite party. The notice duly served, but there was no reply. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief. 2. On receiving the complaint, the Forum issued notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties were duly served the notice but they were absent on the date of hearing and therefore they had to be set exparte. 3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1, the complainant and Exts A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the prepaid order. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the courier service. Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext.A4 is the acknowledgement due. On perusal of the above documents it is clear that the 1st opposite party has not taken proper care to deliver the consignment to the consignee. Moreover, they have no explanation about the missing of the consignment. It shows that due to the negligent act of the 1st opposite party the consignment is lost. It amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get compensation from the 1st opposite party. Had the mobile set been received by the 2nd Opposite party then the complainant it would have get its price refunded. Opposite party No.2 is made as party only because he sold the mobile set. Hence 2nd opposite party is exonerated from the liability. Opposite party No.1 is liable for the loss caused to the complainant. Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to pay `2,999/-to the complainant being the price of the mobile set and `1,500/- is the compensation for mental agony and `1,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which `2,999/- will fetch an interest @10% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Receipt for purchasing Mobile Phone issued by OP.No.2 A2. Receipt issued by OP NO.1 to complainant. A3. 17-09-10 copy of lawyer notice. A4. Postal acknowledgement card PW1. K.Dayananda Mallya Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | , | | 
