BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 7th day of December, 2005
CD No.97/2005
D. Satya Sirish,S/o. D. Raghava Reddy,
D.No. 41/611,Kothapeta, Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Proprietor,
M/s Anwar Times,Shop No. 7,Abdullakhan Estate,Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 29.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri S.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant Sri A.V. Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over, for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Honble Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- cost of the cell, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant purchased a Samsung (R-220) cell from opposite party on 27-6-03 for Rs.5,000/- vide bill No.000141 and obtained guarantee card. The said cell worked for two months, and as per terms of guarantee card the complainant gave the said cell and guarantee card to the opposite party and opposite party issued a receipt for the same on 4-10-2003 vide receipt No.1631 and promised to give a new piece within a couple of days. Inspite of several requests the opposite party did not give new piece nor paid the cost of cell i.e. Rs.5,000/-. Being vexed, the complainant got issued legal notice on 24-12-2003 and opposite party gave reply requesting to send Xerox copies of bill and receipt for verification, and the complainant, there after, through his counsel on 28-1-2004 sent the required documents and the same is received by the opposite party but the opposite party did neither replaced with new piece nor paid the cost of the cell. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to file this case before this forum seeking redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Legal notice dated 24-12-2003 issued by complainants counsel to opposite party (2) Reply to Ex.A1 dated 3-1-2004 by opposite partys counsel to complainants counsel (3) Legal notice, dated 28-1-2004 issued by complainants counsel to opposite parties counsel (4) Postal acknowledgement (2 No.s) (5)Repairing receipt, dated 4-10-2003 issued by opposite party and (6) Cash bill, dated 27-6-2003 issued by opposite party to the complainant for Rs.5,000/-, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1to A6 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to opposite party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed its written version denying any of its liability.
5. The written version of the opposite party question the maintainability of the complainants case either in law or on facts, but admits the bill No.000141 dated 27-6-2003 was issued to complainant D.S. Sirish as to the purchase of Samsung (R-220) for Rs.5,000/-, but denies the cell worked for two months only. It further submits that the complainant did not cooperate properly by producing receipt and warranty card, so as to enabling the opposite party to provided its proper services and lastly submits that to have goodwill and good relations with customers opposite party is offering new piece to the complainant and prays for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In support of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) Reply notice issued by opposite partys counsel to complainants counsel, dated 3-1-2004. (2) Postal receipt bearing No.4155, dated 9-1-2004. (3) Postal receipt bearing No.4156, dated 9-1-2004. (4) Postal acknowledgement, dated 12-1-2004. (5) Postal acknowledgement, dated 10-1-2004. (6) Office copy of letter of opposite party dated 16-2-2004 to complainants counsel and complainant (7) Certificate of posting dated 16-2-2004 (8) Office copy letter of opposite party dated 18-3-2004 to the complainant and (9) Certificate of posting dated 18-3-2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B9 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant. The opposite party also relied on third party affidavit of C. Jakeer Basha.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and part of opposite party?:
8. It is a simple case of complainant alleging deficiency of service on opposite party for not returning the cell after attending its repairs. The complainant alleges that he purchased a Samsung (R-220) cell from opposite party on 27-6-2003 vide Ex.A-6 and the said cell was not properly functioning after two months of its purchase and handed over the said cell to opposite party on 4-10-2003 vide Ex.A-5. There after, the opposite party did neither return the said cell nor paid the cost of the cell to the complainant. But as against to it the written version of opposite party in its averments submits that the complainant is at fault as he did not produce the bill and warranty as requested and the opposite party is responsible for services only and not for defective pieces and further alleges the complaint is bad for non joinder of proper party i.e. Samsung Company and lastly admits that without prejudice to the above contents the opposite party is offering new piece to the complainant.
9. Having regard to over all consideration there is no much difficulty in holding the opposite party deficient in service in neither returning the said cell of the complainant after attending its repairs nor returning the costs of the cell to the complainant.
10. The learned counsel for opposite party in his arguments stated that the Ex.A-5 repairing receipt dated 4-10-2003 of opposite party does not bears the signature of opposite party, hence, the said Ex.A-5 cannot be looked into. The said contention of opposite party does not inspire any confidence as the opposite party in its written version averments in para 7 submitted that without prejudice to the above contents the opposite party to keep up the goodwill and good relations with the customers opposite party is offering new piece to the complainant, from the above commitment made by the opposite party what appears is that the opposite party ready to give new cell to the complainant and hence the pleas taken by the opposite party are remaining as plea for plea sake without any substantiating material.
11. Therefore, in the circumstances discussed above their appears a careless conduct of opposite party with supine in differences in not returning the said cell after its repairs nor return the cost of the cell to the complainant which is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense embarrassment and mental tension and agony for which the opposite party has to compensate by paying Rs.1000/- as compensation. Hence, there by the deficiency of service to the complainant is made out and hence there remains every bonafidies in the complainants case and there by his entitleness for the reliefs sought. As the complainant is driven to the Forum for redressal the complainant is entitled to the cost of Rs.500/-.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- cost of the Cell Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as cost of this case within a month of receipt of this Order.
Dictation to Stenographer, transcriber by him, corrected and pronounced in the open court this the 7th day of December, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1 Legal notice dated 3.1.2004 issued by complainants counsel to opposite
party.
Ex A.2 Reply notice to Ex A.1 dated 3.1.2004 to opposite partys counsel to
Complainants counsel.
Ex A.3 Legal notice dt 28.1.2004 issued by complainants counsel to opposite
partys counsel.
Ex A.4 Postal Acknowledgments.
Ex A.5 Repairing receipt, of Anwar Times, Kurnool dated 4.10.2003.
Ex A.6 Cash bill of Anwar Times, Kurnool. dated 27.6.2003.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex B.1 Reply notice, dt 3.1.2004.
Ex B.2 Postal receipt No. 4155 dated 9.1.2004.
Ex B.3 Postal receipt No. 4156 dated 9.1.2004.
Ex B.4 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex B.5 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex B.6 (Xerox copy) reply letter of opposite party dt 16`.2.2004.
Ex B.7 Certificate of posting dated 16.2.2004.
Ex B.8 Reply of opposite party, dated 18.3.2004 (Xerox Copy).
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri S.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri A.V. Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
