w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M. Lakshminath v/s Living Media India Limited

    F.A. No. 1070 of 2013 Against C.C. No. 591 of 2012, Distinct Forum II, Hyderabad

    Decided On, 27 March 2018

    At, Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. PATIL VITHAL RAO
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: M/s. K. Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: Served.



Judgment Text

Oral Order: (B.N. Rao Nalla, President)

1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 05/09/2013 made in CC 591/2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -II, Hyderabad.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he paid an amount of Rs.2,498/- to the opposite party through City Bank Credit Card bearing No. 5546370622463005 on 26.06.2010 for supply of Morning Raga, Six Books of Bagit Today, A holiday Voucher for 3 days and 2 nights for a couple. But they have not supplied the above items nor compensated the same. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2,498/- with interest @ 18% pa from 26.06.2012, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the holiday voucher, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of six books of bag, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

4) Though notice was served on the opposite party, called absent.

5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Heard the complainant and he also filed written arguments.

6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.

7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8) None appears on both sides since a long time. Though notice was served on the respondent/opposite party it did not choose to contest the matter.

9) The points that arise for consideration are,

(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii) To what relief ?

10) Point No. 1 :

The contention of the appellant/complainant is that he paid an amount of Rs.2,498/- to the opposite party through City Bank Credit Card bearing No. 5546370622463005 on 26.06.2010 for supply of Morning Raga, Six Books of Bagit Today, A holiday Voucher for 3 days and 2 nights for a couple. But they have not supplied the above items nor compensated the same. On the other hand, though, notices were served on the respondent/opposite party, it did not choose to contest the matter before the District Forum as well as before this Commission. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation.

11) Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the District Forum failed to consider the e-mail from the respondent/opposite party dated 11.3.2011.

12) We have perused the documents relied on by the appellant/complainant. Ex.A-1 is the Citi Bank Statement and Ex. A-2 is the letter from Citi Bank stating that they have debited an amount of Rs.2,498/- from his account towards the transaction made at the respondent/opposite party which supports the contention of the appellant/complainant that he paid the said amount to the respondent/opposite party. Further, Ex.A-3 email correspondence would show that the order was received by the respondent/opposite party from the appellant/complainant and it is pending for disposal. When such is the case, after receipt of the amount, the respondent/opposite party did not send the articles as ordered by the appellant/complainant even after Ex.A3 e-mail correspondence nor refunded the amount which amounts to deficiency in service on the part the respondent/opposite party and since the obligation has been pending with the respondent/opposite party hence the complaint is within limitation. When there is no contradictory version on the side of the respondent/opposite party even though served with notices, in those circumstances, we have no option except to accept the version of the appellant/complainant.

13) After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the respondent/opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,498/- along with interest @ 9% pa from 26.06.2010, to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant/complainant. The District Forum did not consider the e-mail correspondence and dismissed the complaint, by oversight, on the ground of limitation

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/> 14) Point No. 2 : In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2013 in CC 591 of 2012 passed by the District Forum -II, Hyderabad and consequently, the complaint is allowed in part directing the respondent/ opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.2,498/- along with interest @ 9% pa from 26.06.2010, to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant/complainant. Time for compliance four weeks.
O R