D.O.F. 05.09.2012
D.O.O. 15.01.2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2014.
C.C.No.265/2012
Deepthi Ashok
D/o. Ashokan,
“Deepam Nivas”, : Complainant
Azhikkal P.O.
Kannur – 670 009
(Rep. by Adv. Jithin Krishna K.)
1. Mr. Abdul Majeed
Proprietor
Orma Phone World
Near BSNL Bhavan
College Road
Mattannur – 670 702 : Opposite Parties
2. Mr. Abhijith
S/o. Shivajnanam
Cherukunnu thara
Kannur – 670 301
O R D E R
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to deliver the computer or to return the purchase price, i.e., `32,275 along with15% interest and to pay an amount of `25000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : The complainant was working in a private company. 2nd opposite party approached the complainant for the sale of the computer and the complainant decided to purchase the same from the shop of 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party gave a quotation of `32,375 for the computer on 22.09.2010 to the complainant. The complainant availed a loan for purchasing the computer from Azhikode Service Co-operative Bank for `32,375 for an interest at the rate of 15%. The cheque for the same was handed over to the 2nd opposite party towards the price of computer and the said amount was credited to the account of 1st opposite party on 14.10.2010. At the time of handing over the cheque 1st and 2nd opposite parties promised the complainant to deliver the computer within two weeks. But they had not done as promised. Although several times the complainant has approached the opposite parties to deliver the computer they have not done so. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint notice was issued to opposite parties. 1st opposite party has refused notice and it was returned as “unclaimed”. 2nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Thereafter he remained absent.
The 2nd opposite party contended that 1st opposite party is the proprietor of the Firm “Orma Phone World” and he is not having any ownership or right over the shop. 2nd opposite party had admitted that he had handed over the cheque of `32,275 to 1st opposite party and he had tried to contact 1st opposite party after getting the notice of complainant, but 1st opposite party did not respond. 2nd opposite party further stated that he is not liable for the acts of 1st opposite party and he is innocent regarding the allegations.
Here the main question to be considered is whether was any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. If yes, what is the remedy and who is liable. The evidence in this case consists of the chief examination of PW1 and Ext. A1 to A7.
Ext.A1 is the quotation given by Orma Phone World in which 1st opposite party is the proprietor. Ext.A2 is the letter given by the Azhikode Service Co-op. Bank to Orma Phone World informing them about the sanction of loan. These documents are the clear evidence to prove the case of the complainant. If the 1st opposite party had delivered the computer he could have appeared before the Forum and gave evidence to that affect. But the wilful absence of 1st opposite party supports the case of complainant. 2nd opposite party also have no case that the computer has been delivered to the complainant as per the quotation. So these facts show that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
Now the question to be considered is what is the remedy. Admittedly complainant has taken loan from the Bank to purchase computer. It is also to be noted that according to the complainant the interest of loan is 15%. As there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of complainant the opposite party is liable to return back `32,375 with 15% interest to complainant. It can be seen that 1st opposite party is the proprietor of Orma Phone World. Thus Orma Phone World being a proprietary concern 2nd opposite party can not be its partner. The cheque has been credited to the account of 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party also produced a document to show that the shop is in the ownership and possession of 1st opposite party. So 1st opposite party is liable to give back the amount of `32,375 with 15% interest to complainant. Moreover, the acts of opposite party has caused great mental agony and hardships to complainant. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of `3000 towards compensation along with litigation cost of `1,000 from 1st opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to return back `32,375 (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Five only) with 15% interest from the date of issuance of loan i.e., from 01.10.2010 along with compensation of `3000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation cost of `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) to complainant. The 1st opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of Quotation dated 22.09.2010.
A2. Letter dated 01.10.2010.
A3. Copy of lawyer notice.
A4. Postal receipt.
A5. Postal acknowledgment
A6. Reply Letter dated 19.07.2012.
A7. Returned Registered with A/D.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
