Kerala

Idukki

CC/118/2020

Sachin mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADNT Rathna - Opp.Party(s)

Adv: K M Sanu

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :16/09/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 9^th day of June 2022

Present :

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.118/2020

Between

Complainant : Sachin Mathew,

Vattakkunnel House,

Kumaramangalam P.O., Thoduuzha.

(By Adv.K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,

ADNT RATHNA,

Doshi Gardens, Shop No.14 'D' Block,

NSK Salai, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.

2 . The Managing Director,

Sony Electronics India Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Muscat Tower, SA Road,

Kadavantra, Kochi 682 020.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Facts of the complaint are briefly stated hereunder:-

.
1 . Complainant is running an advertisement institution for earning his livelihood. This institution which is named as 'The Pantomath productions' makes videos and short films for advertisements.

 

2 . Complainant had purchased some products, worth Rs.4,46,300/- including camera from 1^st opposite party on 03/09/2020. These products were delivered at Thodupuzha by 1^st opposite party. Among these products, complainant had purchased “Sony G – 128 GB 300/299 Mbs storage device (SD) card which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party. Shooting videos and recordings are kept in this 'SD' card for editing and other advertisement proceedings. Complainant had paid Rs.16,101/- for this 'SD' card only.

(Cont......2)

-2-

3 . Complainant is well experienced in advertisement field and he has many works and customers. Therefore, complainant purchased the new camera and decided to start a new office.

 

4 . But, Complainant when checked the videos and recordings which were stored in this SD card for further proceedings, he was not able to see those again. Then, he understood that the 'SD' card has no storage capacity. Due to the storage incapacity of 'SD' card, complainant could not finish the advertisement works and giving to his customers at the right time.

 

5 . Complainant informed about the defects of 'SD' card to opposite parties through phone and E-mail, even though they agreed that it will be recovered and refund the money, they didn't take any steps for that till the date.

 

6 . Opposite parties have not recovered the data from 'SD' card or refunded the money have which is deficiency in service on their part. Complainant has right to get compensation and refund of the money paid from opposite parties.

 

Hence, he prayed for following reliefs.

 

(a) Opposite parties may be directed to refund the 'SD' card's price Rs.16,101.70 with 12% interest.

 

(b) Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

 

7 . Commission served notice to opposite parties. But they didn't appear before the Commission. Nor have they filed any written version.

 

8 . Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced Tax invoice. This document was marked as Ext.P1. Also, he produced 'SD' card and it was labelled as 'MO1”.

 

9 . Opposite parties was not appeared and represented at any time. Hence they were set- exparte.

(Cont......3)

-3-

10 . The point which arise for consideration is,

 

1. 1. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

      2. If so, what reliefs he is entitled to?

 

We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused document and proof affidavit. Ext.P1 is copy of Tax invoice issued from first opposite party. As per this P1 document, it is seen that complainant has paid Rs.16,101.70/- for 'SONY-G-128GB 300/299 Mbs Card'. Therefore, we have found that complainant has purchased the alleged 'SD' card from these opposite parties. In the proof affidavit, complainant has stated that he informed opposite parties about the defects of SD card, but they didn't take any steps to resolve the defects. Where as, these opposite parties have not appeared before the Commission also. Complainant has produced the 'SD card' before the Commission. We are of the considered view that the SD card was defective because, no other evidence taken by opposite parties against the allegation of complainant. Data in defective product was not recovered by opposite parties and nor have they given refund. This is the deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. Therefore complainant has right to get refund of money paid and compensation from opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.

 

Opposite parties are directed to refund price of SD card Rs.16,101.70/- and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per anum from the date of petition, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 9^th day of June 2022.

 

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

(Cont......4)

-4-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sachin Mathew

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Copy of Tax invoice issued from first opposite party.

Ext.MO1- 'SD' card

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

 

 

Forwarded by Order

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR