-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.41/2018.
Date of filing: 09.07.2018.
Date of disposal: 23.01.2019.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Nagayya Swamy S/o Shivmurtayya,
Age:major, Occ: Private Work,
R/o Village Chindi, Tq and Dist: Bidar.
( By Sri.P.M.Deshpande.,Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) Vasavi Times and Gifts
Near Madiwal Chowk,
Udgir Road bidar-585401.
(By Sri.Shivakumar., Inperson.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opponent. The allegation in a nutshell is as follows:-
2. That, the complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Type Samsung Galaxy J2, bearing IMEI No.352349085726599 on 25.11.2016 from the opponent against a price of Rs.7400/-. From the day one, the mobile phone was nonfunctional and paralyzed and inspite of approach, the defect was never rectified. Exasperated, the complainant got issued legal notice on 02.04.2018 demanding rectification or replacement of the defective set. Even then, on 25.04.2018, the complainant once again approached the opponent for rectification of the defective mobile set to no avail and hence this complainant.
3. Upon notice, the Manager of the opponent business concern had put up appearance on 09.08.2018 and had orally submitted that, the matter would be taken up with the manufacturer and settled. Thereafter, inspite of several adjournment, the opponent never put up appearance but ultimately on 29.11.2018 the complainants counsel submitted that, the opponent is not coming forward to settle the matter and urged to permit him to proceed with the matter by leading evidence. Consequentially evidence affidavit was filed on 03.01.2019. After that also, the O.P. never bothered to appear and lead any evidence.
4. None came forward to argue the matter, hence the forum proceeded to pass an appropriate order.
5. In the absence of any defence of the O.P. and his admission on 09.08.2018, it is amply proven by the complainant that, he was sold a defective mobile set and the same was never restored to order inspite of approach. The inherent defect in the goods sold and deficiency in service is aptly proven for which we proceed to pass the following.
ORDER.
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opponent is directed to replace the defective mobile set with an immaculate, properly functional one of the same type or refund the cost of the set with 12% interest calculated from the date of purchase till the date of realisation;
- The opponent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses;
- Upon replacement of the mobile set or refund of the cost, the complainant would have to return the existing one with him to the O.P.
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 23rd day of January 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Original Cash receipt No.VTG 16893 date.25.11.2016.
- Annexure.B– Office copy of legal notice date.02.04.2018.
- Annexure.C- Original postal receipt.
- Annexure.D– Copy of AADHAR Card.
Document produced by the Opponents.
-Nil-
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri.Nagayya Swamy S/o Shivamurthayya (complainant).
Opponent.
–Nil-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
