<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 26th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1414/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Shashidar Sambaragi,<br /> No.108, 3rd Cross,<br /> 5th Block, 3rd Stage,<br /> Banashankari,<br /> Bangalore – 560 085.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Manager,<br /> (Marketing)<br /> Vensar Cooling System,<br /> No.297, Basement <br /> M.N.R Complex, 17th Cross,<br /> Sampige Road, Malleswaram,<br /> Bangalore – 03.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to extend the service of maintenance of AC as per the terms of contract and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP for the maintenance of the A.C which is installed at his house for a period of 6 months from 01.02.2008 to 31.06.2008. OP collected the maintenance and service charges of Rs.2,475/- entered into a maintenance contract. But thereafter some how OP failed to extend its service in spite of the repeated demands, requests and calls made by the complainant. Complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Thus felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the services of the OP with regard to maintenance of the A.C installed at his house. OP agreed to maintain the said A.C for a period of 6 months from 01.02.2008 to 31.06.2008 and collected the maintenance and service charges of Rs.2,475/-. Maintenance contract is produced. OP acknowledged the receipt of the said amount mentioned in the contract.<br /> <br /> 5. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that though OP collected the said maintenance charges failed to attend to the defect as and when pointed out by the complainant. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant making repeated calls to the OP went in vain. Neither they appeared in person nor they sent any mechanic to attend to the defect found in the A.C. For want of proper maintenance complainant is unable to utilize the said A.C to his satisfaction. Due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP, complainant is forced to face both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. Though OP collected the service and maintenance charges failed to discharge its obligation. Complainant paid the entire maintenance charges for 6 months but unable to reap the fruits of his investment because of the non co-operation on the part of the OP. OP failed to rectify the defect found in the said A.C nor given the maintenance service as promised though retained the said huge amount for more than 6 months. Thereby OP accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances we find the complainant is able to prove deficiency in service and entitled for the relief. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,475/- the maintenance charges collected and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />