J U D G E M E N T

1.      The complainant filed the complaint against the OP U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.      The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is a class-I contractor.   He had purchased two Hitachi vehicles on 6.5.2011 and 22.10.2012.   As the said vehicles were found not working properly, he kept them at Mountain Movers, Telco Authorized Dealer, Akkalawadi, Mansion ground floor shop No.17, Vidya Nagar, Hubli and had filed Consumer Case No.6/2013 and 7/2013 before the Dicst. Consumer Forum, Yadgiri.   The notice of the said case was sent to 2^nd OP on 23.9.2013 through the OP herein i.e the Professional Courier, Yadgiri for which receipt No.886275 and 886276 were issued by the OP.   However, the OP did not intimate in the said cases whether notice sent to the 2^nd OP were service or not, till this day.  This caused hardship and mental agony to the complainant as he was worried that the cases in CC No.6/2013 and 7/2013 would be affected due to the non-service of the notice to OP-2 in the said cases.   Due to non-service of notices to 2^nd OP, cases filed were delayed and for the same, the OP is responsible.   Therefore, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.

3.      On service of notice, when OP failed to appear before this Forum, it was placed Exparte.

4.      Complainant to prove his case, filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relief on two documents which are marked as Exh.P-1 and Exh.P-2.

5.      Heard arguments.

6.      The points that arise for our consideration are;

1)      Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP against him?

2)      Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

3)      What order?

7.      The findings on the above points are as under;

1)      In the affirmative.

2)      Partly in the affirmative. 

3)      As per final order for the following;

:: REASONS ::

8.      Point No.1 :  

                  It is the case of the complainant that, he had filed CC No.6/2013 and 7/2013 before this Forum and the notices were sent to the OP-2 in the said cases through the OP here in this case, however, the OP failed to inform or intimate to this Forum, whether notice to OP-2 in the said two cases were served or not, on account of this, the disposal of the said cases are delayed and due to which the complainant suffered hardship and mental agony.   This case of the complainant is not contested by the OP by appearing before this Forum.   Therefore, the said case of the complainant stands proved and the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.   Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.

9.      Point No.2 :

                  As the complainant has proved his case against the OP and deficiency in service on its part, he is entitled for compensation towards the same with cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order.   Accordingly, we answer this point partly in the affirmative.

10.  Point No.3 :-

                  As per order below; 

:: ORDER ::

            The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.

            The complainant is entitled to recover of Rs.20,000/- from OP towards deficiency in service.

            The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the OP.

            OP is given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amounts.

             Intimate the parties accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 1^st day of February 2014)