Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/168/2008

M.P.Veerabhadra,Proprietor,Neelagiri Tarpaulin Industries, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Sangeetha, - Opp.Party(s)

A.H.Rakesh,

10 Mar 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/168/2008

M.P.Veerabhadra,Proprietor,Neelagiri Tarpaulin Industries,
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Proprietor,Sangeetha,
The Manager,Smart Care Services,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of Filing:17.01.2008 Date of Order: 07.03.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. COMPLAINT NO: 168 OF 2008 M.P. Veerabhadra, Proprietor, Neelagiri Tarpaulin Industries, No.6/2, Kamadenu Complex, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560 002. Complainant V/S 1. The Proprietor, Sangeetha, No.47, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560002. 2. The Manager, Smart Care Services, No.267, 6th Cross, I Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore. Opposite Parties ORDER By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming refund of Rs. 9,180/- with interest and costs. The facts of the case are that, the complainant had purchased Sony Ericsson-W 300i mobile phone bearing IEMI No. 35384001-371325-04 and handset No. 353640013713252 with warranty period of one year and the same was started giving the following problems:- (a) Non display of phone numbers on the screen. (b) Improper catch of signal (c) Disturbances during calls and (d) Sudden termination of Calls. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and he was told to approach opposite party No.2 and to the utter shock of the complainant, without checking the mobile set that the said problems were due to the complainant’s wet which had gone inside the mobile and he requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the said mobile and the opposite party No.1 refused to replace the same. The complainant issued legal notice on 6/12/2007 to the opposite parties asking them to remove the said defects or replace the said handset. But there was no reply to the said notice from both the opposite parties. Hence, he has filed this complaint. 2. Notice was issued to both the opposite parties. Notice served. Both the opposite parties remained absent and placed exparte on 6/2/2008. In the absence of the opposite parties defence version, the case of the complainant has to be taken into consideration in meeting the ends of justice. 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? 5. Our findings to both the points are in the affirmative for the following:- REASONS 6. It is admitted by the tax invoice that the complainant has purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile handset for a sum of Rs.9,180/- on 5/1/2007 with a warranty period of one year and the handset has developed defects, but there is no documentary proof to show that the handset was having the defects mentioned by the complainant. There is also no proof that the complainant has approached the opposite parties, but the legal notice sent by the complainant on 6/12/2007 was served on the opposite party and they did not replied to the same. This shows the deficiency of the opposite parties and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- which the complainant has sought for towards mental agony, physical strain, loss and damages are not justifiable. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.9,180/- to the complainant on receiving the handset which is in the custody of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of this proceedings. 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2008. Order accordingly, MEMBER We concur the above findings. MEMBER PRESIDENT