COMPLAINT FILED ON: 04.01.2011
DISPOSED ON: 03.03.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
03RD MARCH 2011
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.19/2011
Complainant | Shri.Ganesh Sah Aged about 48 years, S/o Kalicharan Sah R/a # 50/45, Manju Nivas, Bhadrappa Layout, Singapura, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore. Advocte :S.B.Mukkannappa. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. The Manager, Total Mall, HAL Air Port Road, Murgeshpalya, Beside Shiva Temple, Bangalore-560 017. Exparte 2. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd., Office at C.V.Ramannagar, Inside Bagmane Tech Park, 2.2 KM from old Madras Road, Baiyappanahalli Road Jn, Bangalore Exparte |
| | | |
O R D E R
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the OP (herein after called as O.P) to refund amount of Rs.2,500/- together with 12% interest and compensation of Rs.5,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:
On 04.10.2010 complainant purchased Motorola Mobile Phone model CD07040 for a sum of Rs.2,500/- from OP-1 who is a dealer of Motorola product and OP-2 is a manufacturer. OP issued a bill dated 14.02.2010 bearing No.5300000041315 on dated 04.10.2010 with a warranty of one year to the shock and surprise of the complainant. The said mobile phone system was went off on 08.10.2009 and immediately the said fact was brought to the notice of OP-1 is executive, Mr. Sundar Raj on 12.10.2009 who is working under the first OP having employee identity No. 40703448 and explained about the problem of the mobile and requested him to replace or exchange or return the phone amount. The executive of OP-1 advised the complainant to approach the service center and failed to give the address of the service center in Bangalore. Inspite of repeated requests OPs failed to solve the problem of the mobile phone as early as possible. But OP-1 ignored the same. OPs intentionally and deliberately made complainant to purchase the defective mobile set and hence on 19.10.2010 complainant got issued legal notice to OP-1 calling upon OP-1 either to exchange or refund the amount paid towards the said phone but till date OP has not given any reply to the legal notice. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant OPs are failed to replace or refund cost of the mobile phone. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against the OPs. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.
3. After registration of the complaint notice is sent to OPs. Inspite of service of notice from the Forum OPs remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP-1 & 2 is placed ex parte.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the bill dated 04.10.2010, warranty issued by OP-1, legal notice with postal acknowledgement and receipts. OPs did not participate the proceedings. Heard argument of the complainant.
5. It is contended by the complainant that on 04.10.2010 he purchased Motorola Mobile phone from OP-1 vide model No.CD07040 complainant paid Rs.2,500/- cash to OP-1. To substantiate the said fact complainant is produced the bill issued by OP-1 dated 04.10.2010 with warranty of one year. OP-1 is the dealer of the Motorola mobile phone and OP-2 is a manufacturer of the same. It is contended by the complainant that on 08.10.2010 the said mobile phone was went off. Immediately complainant informed the said fact to executive of OP-1 Sri Sundar Raj on 12.10.2010. Complainant explained about the problem of the mobile and requested him to replace or exchange the same or to return the amount. In turn the executive of OP-1 advised the complainant to approach the service center but he failed to give address of the service center in Bangalore. Complainant made several requests to solve the problem of the mobile phone as early as possible but OP-1 ignored the same. OP-1 deliberately caused more problems. Inspite of repeated requests OP-1 failed to rectify the defects or to give address of the service center. Complainant caused legal notice to OP-1 on 19.10.2010 through RPAD calling upon OP-1 either to exchange or refund the amount paid towards the said phone but OP-1 till date failed to give any reply to the said notice.
6. We have perused the unchallenged affidavit evidence filed by the complainant and the documents produced. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. Complainant has purchase the Motorola Mobile phone from OP-1 on 04.10.2010 and paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- with warranty of one year. Within the period of warranty complainant is entitled for free service and for replacement. The said mobile phone was found not functioning within four days from the date of purchase. The mobile phone sold to complainant is of a Manufacturing defect. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of OP-1 Mr. Sundar raj on 12.10.2010 within a week of its purchase OP-1 failed to give service and failed to provide the address of the service center to the complainant. Inspite of selling defective mobile OPs failed to give proper service or exchange inspite of legal notice. This act of OPs amount to deficiency in service on their part. OP-2 being a manufacturer is also responsible to the complainant. From the absence of the OPs we can draw the inference that OPs admits all the allegations made by the complainant. We have satisfied that complainant is able to prove deficiency in service against OPs. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of amount of Rs.2,500/- being cost of the mobile set and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.2,500/- being the cost of mobile set and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and take back the defective mobile set from the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication, failing which complainant is entitled for interest at the rate 12% p.a. from 19.10.2010 till realization.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 3RD day of March 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
gm.
