Complaint No.459/2012 Date of filing: 12.10.2012 Date of disposal:21.12.2012
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
Dated this 21st day of December 2012
Complaint No. 459/2012
Present : 1) Sri. T.H. Narayanagowda, President
2) Sri. Shivakumar .J Member
: Rajendran.D., Budget Control Section, Central Workshop (Railways), Ashokapuram, Mysore-08.
Opponent : M/s Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., 8148, Jubilee Complex, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, Punjab, Pin-143001.
(Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponent for directing it to refund the sum of Rs.2,999/- paid by him by way of D.D. towards the costs of Ubislate 7+ Tablet along with interest at the rate of 12% from 29.06.2012 till the date of payment, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and monetary loss caused on account of deficiency in service and costs of the complaint etc.,.
2) After the admission of the complaint as usual issued the notice to the opponents by RPAD. But in spite of service of notice, the opponent remained absent. Hence, he has been placed exparte and then posted the case for filing the affidavit of the complainant. Thereupon the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his case and closed his evidence. Hence, thereafter heard his arguments and then posted the case for orders.
3) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments submitted by the complainant, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
2. What order?
4) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.2:- As per final order for the following,
5) Point No.1:- In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his case. In his affidavit, the complainant has duly sworn on oath in respect of all the averments of his case made out in the complaint. Thus the oral evidence of the complainant fully corroborates his case made out in the complaint. Apart from the said oral evidence, the complainant has also relied upon several copies of documents namely certificate dated 21.11.2011 issued by Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India, booking receipt dated 29.06.2012, counterfoil slip of the bank dated 29.06.2012 for having purchased the D.D. for Rs.2,999/- in the name of opponent, postal receipt dated 29.06.2012 for having sent the D.D. to the opponent by registered post, notice dated 26.07.2012, postal receipt dated 26.07.2012 for having sent the said notice to the opponent by registered post, G-mail reminders and the Tanishq receipt dated 18.08.2012 etc., in support of his case made out in the complaint. The contents of the said documents also corroborate the oral evidence of the complainant and his case made out in the complaint. Thus, the oral and the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant fully corroborate his case that the unique gift namely Aakash Ubislate booked by him with the opponent by sending its costs of Rs.2,999/- for giving the same to his wife on the marriage anniversary day was not sent by the opponent in spite of repeated demands made by him in writing as well as by sending G-mails. Likewise, the material on record clearly discloses that though the opponent has received the price of the article booked by the complainant, the opponent has failed to send the same to the complainant within the agreed period of time in spite of repeated demands made by the complainant in writing as well as by G-mails and therefore, the complainant was made to purchase an alternative gift from Tanishq by paying the sum of Rs.26,587/- for giving the same to his wife on the marriage anniversary day and the same is a deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and as a result of which, the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony and monetary loss as alleged in the complaint. The said evidence of the complainant is neither challenged nor rebutted by the opponent in any manner as he remained absent in spite of service of notice. Hence, we have no other alternative except to believe the said evidence of the complainant and his case made out in the complaint.
6) In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case of deficiency in service on the part of the opponent as alleged in the complaint and therefore, the opponent is liable to refund the sum of Rs.2,999/- sent by him along with reasonable compensation and costs of the complaint. In this complaint, the complainant has claimed the compensation of Rs.50,000/- apart from costs of the complaint. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- apart from refund of Rs.2,999/- sent by him to the opponent. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
7) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and the finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part as stated above, in the ends of justice. Hence, in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,
:: O R D E R ::
The Complaint is allowed in part and the opponent is directed to refund the sum of Rs.2,999/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In case of default to comply with the aforesaid orders within the stipulated period of 30 days, the opponent is liable to pay the damages of Rs.50/- per day from the date of default till the date of payment.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 21st day of December 2012)