Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/16/1043

Mr, Lakshmana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Stay Fit - Opp.Party(s)

S. N. Sameer, Arun J

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DIST.CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
8TH FLOOR,BWSSB BLDG.
K.G.ROAD,BANGALORE
560 009
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/1043
 
1. Mr, Lakshmana
#497. NGEF Layout 5th Main, 14th Cross, Door No.1 1st Floor, Nagarabhabvi Bangalore-56
Bengaluru
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager Stay Fit
Exercise Equipment No, 1039/B, 2nd Main Next to New Shanti Sagar Hotel Bangalore-576040
Bengaluru
karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.SINGRI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Shantha P.K. MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 27 Oct 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint Filed on:25.07.2016

Disposed On:27.10.2016

                                                                              

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 

 

27th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

 

PRESENT:-

SRI. P.V SINGRI

PRESIDENT

 

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA

MEMBER

 

SMT. P.K SHANTHA

MEMBER

 


                          

COMPLAINT No.1043/2016

 

COMPLAINANT

 

Sri.Lakshmana,

Age 64years,

#497, NGEF Layout,

5th Main, 14th Cross,

Door No.1, 1st Floor,

Nagarabhavi,

Bangalore-56.

 

Advocate – Sri.S.N Sameer

 

 

 

V/s

 

 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTy

 

The Manager,

Stay Fit,

Exercise Equipment,

No.1039/B, 2nd Main,

Next to New Shanti Sagar Hotel,

Bangalore-040.

 

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

 

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to replace the treadmill with new one and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages.

 

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

 

 

The complainant had purchased I20 Motorised Tread mill, DE20 Elliptical Cross Bike, Gym Ball 85 cm, Yoga Mat Mix colour 5 mm for a sum of Rs.72,038/-, Rs.12,322/-, Rs.474/- & Rs.474/- respectively on 02.08.2015 from OP.  The complainant has been using the said equipments.  But the equipment i.e., I20 motorized Tread mill has not been working properly due to manufacturing defect.  The nuts and bolts have become very loose and the handles of the tread mill cannot be held due to electric shocks.  The technician who had come on 27.05.2016 has examined and has given a false report that the tread mill was working in a good condition and has recommended using 4 KV stabilizers.  The problems relating to the lowering of speed from 6 level to 5.5 level has not resolved even after the visit of the mechanic.  Again the complainant was given to the OP and the OP has sent another mechanic by name Basavaraj on 19.07.2016.  He was also not able to resolve the problem.  Again he has given false report that there is a sound issue hence speaker needs to be replaced and nuts and bolts are loose.  He has not disclosed the true fact about the lowering of speed while the complainant has been working on the tread mill and the electricity passing on the handles.  The OP has not bothered to give free service within the warranty period and try to hide the true fact to avoid replacement of the tread mill.  Complainant felt deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Hence, he has filed this complaint for appropriate reliefs.

 

3. After registration of the complaint notice issued to OP.  Despite service of notice, OP failed to appear before the Forum and was placed ex-parte. 

 

4. So as to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence in support of complaint reiterating the complaint averments and produced the copies of documents.

 

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged.  OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

 

6. Let us have cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is the quotation/order booking format which shows about the booking of equipments by the complainant.  Document no.2 is the tax invoice No.1326 dated 02.08.2015 issued by OP to the complainant for Rs.90,000/- which includes I20 Motorised Treadmill, DE20 Elliptical Bike, Gym Ball 85 cm, Yoga Mat Mix Colour 5 MM for Rs.72,038/-, Rs.12,322/-, Rs.474/- and Rs.474/- respectively.  But the issue is only with I20 Motorised Treadmill.  Document No.3 is delivery and installation report receipt No.018, invoice No.1326 dated 02.08.2015.  Document No.4 is onsite service report dated 27.05.2016 which speaks that the machine working in good condition also recommended to use 4KV stabilizer.  Document No.5 is the second onsite service report dated 19.07.2016.  In this report the mechanic by name Basavaraj, mentioned that there is a speaker (sound issue) and nuts and bolts are loose.  He recommended to replace the speaker.  But he has not disclosed the problem of speed and electricity passing on the handles.

 

7. From the available materials placed on record, the failure of the OP to rectify the defect or to exchange the treadmill with new one amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

 

8. From the documents produced by the complainant, it is very clear that the OP has delivered a defective machine and trying to avoid replacement of the treadmill.  This act of OP in not delivering the product which was in good condition and not providing proper service must have put the complainant to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  The very fact of OP not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OP is admitting the claim of the complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced.  The complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony by the act of OP.  The conduct of OP in not giving replacement amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  We are satisfied that the complainant proved deficiency of service against OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that OP is liable to replace the product along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

 

9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following: 

           

              

       O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OP is directed to replace the Treadmill in question with a new one.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony, hardship & inconvenience along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

 

OP shall comply the order passed by this Forum within four weeks from today.

 

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.            

 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 27th day of October 2016)

 

 

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Vln*

COMPLAINT No.1043/2016

                 

Complainant                 -        Sri.Lakshmana,

Bangalore-56.


                                            -vs-

 

Opposite Party              -        The Manager,

Stay Fit,

Bangalore-040.

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 22.09.2016.

 

  1. Sri. Lakshmana.

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT

1)

Document No.1 is the copy of quotation/order booking issued by OP to the complainant for Rs.90,000/-. 

2)

Document No.2 is the copy of tax invoice No.1326 dated 02.08.2015 issued by OP to the complainant for Rs.90,000/-. 

3)

Document No.3 is the copy delivery and installation report issued by OP to the complainant bearing receipt No.018, invoice No.1326 dated 02.08.2015. 

4)

Document No.4 is the copy of onsite service report dated 27.05.2016 issued by OP to the complainant.

5)

Document No.5 is the second onsite service report dated 19.07.2016 issued by OP to the complainant.

 

 

 

 

                 OP    -       Absent

 

 

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Vln*

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.SINGRI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. YASHODHAMMA]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shantha P.K.]
MEMBER

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.