Date of Filing:18.06.2009<br /> Date of Order: 12.11.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1409 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Commandant Balasubramanian Mohan (Retd)<br /> S/o. Late S. Balasubramanian<br /> R/at Apartment No. 105 Block A<br /> Alpine Eco Apartments, Doddanakunndi<br /> Outer Ring Road Marthahalli<br /> Bangalore 560 037 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> The Unit Manager<br /> M/s. Home Solutions Retail (India) Ltd.<br /> H – 92/4 Vanashree Towers<br /> Near Innovative Multiplex<br /> Outer Ring Road, Marthahalli<br /> Bangalore 560 037 Opposite Party<br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The complainant is a retired armed forces officer. He has purchased over Rs. 90,000/- worth products from the opposite party. Complainant was not satisfied with some of the products purchased such as drilling machine, out-dated fevicol, defective wall papers. He approached the opposite party seeking for cash refund in accordance with refund policy. But to the utter shock of the complainant Unit Manager flatly refused to give refund. On 03.03.2009 and again on 04.03.2009 Yathish Chandra, the Unit Manager abused the complainant in vulgar and filthy language when the complainant asked for cash refund. Hence, complainant fearing for his life filed a police case before the HAL police station Bangalore on 04.03.2009. The police have registered FIR against Yathish Chandra. Complainant got issued legal notice on 09.04.2009 calling upon the opposite party to refund amount paid for the defective wall papers, drilling machine and fevicol. Complainant got served another legal notice on the opposite party. Complainant returned cheque for Rs. 2,200/- as same was belated and sub-judice. The opposite party is legally bound to pay back by way of refund in cash and not by way of credit note. The complainant prayed that a decree be passed in his favour for Rs. 26,532/- towards defective wall paper, Rs. 2200/- towards returned drilling machine, Rs. 234/- towards fevicol, Rs. 25,000/- towards delay experienced in the completion of the work, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has deliberately suppressed the true facts. There is no cause of action for the complainant. It is true that drilling machine worth Rs. 2,200/- was purchased by complainant on 03.03.2009 and also fevicol on 04.03.2009. But the allegation that fevicol was outdated is denied. Complainant without provocation started abusing the opposite party staff with filthy language and also threatened of dire consequences without any fault. The allegations that wallpapers are defective are false. Laminates were purchased by daughter of the complainant Smt. Archana Singh. Complainant has no locus standi to allege any defect or deficiency in service in respect of products not purchased by him and the service is not undertaken by opposite party. The complainant refused to accept the cheque in respect of drilling machine. It is specifically denied that opposite party staff threatened the complainant. All the allegations made by the complainant are denied. Opposite party is not liable to pay any further amount falsely claimed by complainant. For all these reasons stated above opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidences of parties are filed.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund amount in respect of drilling machine and fevicol?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 26,522/- towards wallpaper?<br /> 6. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party has no objection whatsoever to refund Rs. 2,200/- towards the cost of the drilling machine and he submitted that already cheque was sent to the complainant for that amount but the cheque was not accepted by the complainant and the same has been returned to opposite party. Therefore, even now also the opposite party is ready to refund the amount of Rs. 2,200/-. The drilling machine is with the opposite party. So as regards this aspect is concerned there is absolutely no dispute. The opposite party came forward to refund Rs. 2,200/-, cost of the drilling machine. Therefore, the complainant shall have to accept the same. In respect of fevicol also, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party even now ready to refund Rs. 234/-, the cost of the fevicol to the complainant. therefore, for this item also there is absolutely no dispute. The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs 234/- towards fevicol. 3rd aspect is in respect of wall paper. The complainant is seeking Rs. 26,532/- on this item. But, unfortunately, the complainant has not produced the bill of wallpaper to show that he has purchased wall papers from the opposite party. When no records or documents are produced by the complainant to support his claim in respect of wall papers it is very difficult to allow the claim in respect of wall paper. The opposite party has taken defence that the complainant has no locus standi to allege any defect or deficiency in service in respect of wall papers not purchased by him. This defence holds substance and merit. Admittedly, the complainant had not produced any papers or documents in respect of wallpaper so as to enable him to claim refund or damages in respect of wallpapers. Therefore, the claim of the complainant towards wall paper cannot be entertained or accepted. The complainant has claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards delay experienced in the completion of interior works and defective wallpaper. Again to prove this there is absolutely no documents or any evidence. The complainant having not purchased the wall papers in his name and he has not produced any documents or agreement entered into between the opposite party and himself in respect of completion of interior work. Therefore, there is absolutely no legal basis to claim Rs. 25,000/- towards delay in completion of interior work and defective wall paper. The complainant again has claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and physical assault etc. This aspect cannot be decided in this summary proceeding. The complainant has already registered FIR for the offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 420 IPC with the police and the FIR has been submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The unit manager Mr. Yatish Chandra had also obtained bail by the Hon’ble Addl. Sessions Court (FTC - III court) Bangalore in criminal Misc. 25282/2009. The matter has been seized by the criminal court. It is for the complainant to establish the allegation of physical assault, harassment etc. before the criminal court and get the relief there. Therefore, in this proceeding it is not possible to award compensation for physical assault, harassment etc. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is entitled for refund Rs. 2,200/- towards drilling machine and Rs. 234/- towards fevicol. Since, the complainant has filed complaint for getting relief by paying court fee and engaged advocate and he has spent some amount to fight out this litigation, he is entitled for the cost of present proceeding. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 2,200/- towards drilling machine and Rs. 234/- towards fevicol to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order. <br /> 8. Complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 9. The opposite party is directed to send the amount by way of D.D / cheque to the complainant directly with intimation to this forum.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />