Date of Filing : 16.11.2011
Date of Order : 03.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 3rd APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 215 / 2011
Sri. G. Prasanna,
S/o. Gangadhar,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at: G. Prasanna Nilaya,
Masthi Layout,
Near Shankar Vidyalaya School,
Kolar Town, Kolar.
(By Sri. M. Manjunatha, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Edifier Distribution Company,
D401, Ramibiz Court,
Shah Industrial Estate,
Opp. Veera Desai Road,
Andheri Est, Mumbai.
2. The Manager,
Rayal Electronics & Computers,
No. 7, 3rd Cross, S.B. Road,
Bangalore – 560 002.
(By Sri. K.A. Khan, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. T. NAGARAJA, MEMBER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay to the Complainant Rs.58,500/- are necessary:
Complainant has purchased DA-500 Pro Home Theatre from OP2 of OP1 for Rs.8,500/- and paid the amount. Warranty was also issued. When he installed it at his house, he found that the said Home Theatre is not working properly. He requested OP in this regard and delivered the defective set to the OP2 on the following day. OP2 without proper rectifying assured the Complainant that it is working properly. Again he found that nothing has been done and it is not working properly. Again he delivered the set to OP2. Hence, the Complaint.
2. In this case OPs though served did not contest the matter till date. OP2 engaged the service of Advocate on 17.01.2012, but till date he has neither filed version nor made any submissions, though it was adjourned on payment of cost, even that has not been paid. Hence, Complainant filed his affidavit. Heard the Complainant since the Ops were absent.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
4. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
5. Reading the Complaint in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is established that on 09.11.2010 Complainant had purchased Home Theatre from OP2 of OP1 for Rs.8,500/-. OPs received the amount and given the warranty card. When the Complainant took the Home Theatre to his house and connected to his TV, it did not work at all. Hence, he contacted OP2, but they said that it has been rectified and given it to the Complainant and again when the Complainant brought it to his house and connected to TV it was not functioning. Complainant returned it, but till today Ops did not deliver it back nor returned the money. It is also established that Complainant issued notice to the OP on 14.07.2011, OPs though received did not care either to replace or refund the amount. This is nothing but deficiency in service. Receiving others money, without prompt delivery & correct/quality goods and not delivering is not only deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice. Hence, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OPs are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.8,500/- together with interest thereon @ 12% P.A. from 09.11.2010 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. Ops are directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
