Date of filing: 25.11.2014.
Date of disposal: 28.01.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 28th day of January, 2015
C.C.No.250 of 2014
Between:
Thomati David Robertson, S/o P.D.E. Babji, Christian, Aged about 36 years, Private Employee, R/o.D.No.6-1/17-32, Jaggupilla Rama Rao Street, Prizerpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada – 9.
…..Complainant.
And
1. The Managing Director, Lot Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., D.No.3-6-369/1, Santana EC Stasy Complex, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.
2. The Branch Manager, Lot Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., D.No.28-10-28, Opp: Krishna Devaraya Complex, Eluru Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada – 2.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 19.01.2015, in the presence of Sri M. Adinarayana Rao, advocate for complainant; opposite parties remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties 1 and 2 directing them to replace HCL Tablet V3 in the place of Tablet Sync 1-0 to the complainant or grant Rs.2,001/- with interest at Rs.24% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards punitive damages, Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and damages caused to complainant, for costs and other reliefs.
The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
1. The 1st opposite party is Managing Director and the 2nd opposite party is local seller of Lot Mobiles Ltd., and they are doing mobile phone business. The complainant being allured by the advertisements made by opposite parties in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 22.10.14 in respect of on buy Nokia X plus mobile phone for Rs.9,999/- get HCL Tablet Rs.8,000/- worth free and also the advertisements made in the Internet, the complainant purchased Nokia X plus mobile phone from the 2nd opposite party on 23-10-2014 for Rs.9,999/- vide invoice No.S1-VJY1-8308. But the 2nd opposite party delivered a Nokia X plus mobile phone along with HCL Tablet SYNC 1.0 worth Rs.5,999/- instead of HCL Tablet V3 model worth Rs.8,000/-. The complainant questioned the 2nd opposite party about the same, for which he stated that the stock of HCL V3 Tablet not available. The opposite parties also given advertisement of same kind on 23-10-2014 and 8-11-2014. The opposite parties mislead the complainant by giving such type of advertisements. The opposite parties have not mentioned about non availability of Tablet V3 model in their advertisements, which is nothing but unfair trade practice. In view of unfair trade practice, the complainant is entitled for replace of HCL Tablet V3 model and also compensation from the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 were remained absent.
3. The complainant filed her chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 on his behalf. None examined on behalf of opposite parties.
4. Heard complainant. Perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 in not giving the HCL Tablet V3 model as advertised in the news papers and Internet?
- If so, to what relief?
Point No.1:
6. The case of complainant is that he being allured by the advertisements made by the opposite parties in the daily news papers and internet that on purchase of Nokia X plus mobile worth Rs.9,999/- get HCL Tablet V3 model on free of cost which worth Rs.8,000, purchased Nokia X plus model phone on 22-10-2014 under Ex.A2 invoice from the 2nd opposite party. The main contention of the complainant is that the 2nd opposite party contrary to the advertisement delivered HCL Tablet Sync 1.0 instead of HCL Tablet V3 model by stating that the HCL V3 Tab is not available, which is nothing but unfair trade practice. Ex.A1 is the advertisement being published in Eenadu daily on 22-10-2014 under the caption “DEEPAVALI OFFERS”. Perusal of Ex.A1 contains the advertisement as “buy Nokia X plus and get HCL tablet worth Rs.8,000/- free”. Ex.A3 and A6 are also the same advertisement published in Sakshi Daily on 23-10-2014 and Eenadu daily on 8.11.2014. Perusal of Ex.A1 and A3 discloses that it does not contain the material that the opposite parties advertised to give HCL V3 Tab only on free of cost. It contains only the material that “get HCL Tablet worth Rs.8,000/- free”. But the complainant has filed Ex.A4 which seems to be a net advertisement contains the words “Free HCL V3 Tab”. Further perusal of Ex.A4 discloses that the opposite parties gave Tablet Sync 1.0 and the rate of Tablet as Rs.5,999/-. But the opposite parties vide Ex.A1, A3 and A6 gave advertisement that the Tab worth Rs.8,000/- is free. As such, it is clear that the opposite parties played deceitful tactics in the course of their business and the acts of opposite parties 1 and 2 are nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further perusal of Ex.A7 discloses the price of Nokia X plus model cell phone is Rs.4,899/-, whereas Ex.A1, A3 and A6 discloses the price of said cell phone as Rs.9,999/-. The opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to make appearance in this matter though they received notices. As such the allegations made by the complainant are unchallenged one. The complainant by way of documentary evidence proved the unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as well as deficiency in service. As the complainant by receiving the Tab prayed to grant the difference amount of Rs.2,001/-, he is entitled for the same besides costs and compensation.
Point No.2:
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,001/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a from 25.11.2014 till payment and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is one month from the date of this order. The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 28th day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Advertisement of OP in Eenadu daily.
Ex.A2 22.10.2014 Photocopy of cash bill
Ex.A3 Photocopy of Advertisement of OP in Sakshi daily.
Ex.A4 Photocopyh of HCL Tablet SYNC 1.0 Box.
Ex.A5 22.10.2014 Photocopy of internet advertisement of OPs.
Ex.A6 08.11.2014 Advertisement of OP in Eenadu daily.
Ex.A7 14.01.2015 Advertisement in Eenadu daily by Big.C.
On behalf of the opposite parties: - Nil-
PRESIDENT (FAC).
