CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No.170/10 Saturday, the 30th day of October, 2010 Petitioner : Dewy Mathew, Neo Classic Rubber Profiles Pvt.Ltd., Teekoy PO, Kottayam. (Adv. Francis Thomas) Vs. Opposite party : 1) Exporters Paradise, D-36 Ground Floor, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi. 2) Senior Manager, First Flight Couriers Ltd., 2nd Floor, Thadathil Buildings, Opp.Municipal Park, Sastri Road, Kottayam. ORDER Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows The 1st opposite party’s agent contacted the complainant on phone and the complainant booked a CD containing the names of domestic suppliers of rings, rubber boots, moulded rubber products, automobile parts and rubber bush. The first opposite party assured that the CD contains the address of major domestic suppliers of the above said products and its allied products. Believing this assurance, the complainant booked the above said CD. The complainant received the CD which was sent by the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party and the complainant paid Rs.3,500/- as its consideration vide invoice No.014924 dated 23/6/10. The complainant opened the cover containing the CD and on verification it is found that the CD contains only the names of certain companies of China which are the suppliers of the above said products. It is found that the CD does not contain any names of domestic suppliers. On noticing the above said facts the complainant contacted the phone numbers mentioned in the invoice and found that those were not working. Further more, the e-mails sent by the complainant to the first opposite party intimating the fact for which also there was no response. On searching the web site of the first opposite party the complainant found similar complaints raised against the first opposite party by so many other purchasers of the CD. The complainant alleged that he act of first opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence filed this complaint claiming return of Rs.3500/- from the 2nd opposite party, compensation of Rs.3500/- and litigation cost Rs.5000/-. Notice was served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties were called absent and were set expartee. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant. In the affidavit the complainant mentioned about two documents but produced only an invoice for Rs.3500/- and it is marked as Ext.A1. Point No.1 Heard the complainant and perused the document placed on record. The complainant averred that he booked the alleged CD believing in the assurances given by the first opposite party. The complainant further averred that on opening and verification of the said CD he found only the names of certain companies of China which are not the suppliers of the products like rings and rubber boots, moulded rubber products, automobile parts and rubber bush. The complainant next averred that on noticing the above said fact he contacted in the phone numbers mentioned in the invoice and found that those were not working. The complainant alleged that the said act of the first opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. Since the opposite parties chose not to contest the allegation and averments of the complainant remain unchallenged. From the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the first opposite party’s act is unfair and their service is deficient. Point no. 1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 The complainant produced the copy of invoice dated 23/6/10 for Rs. 3500/- and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant averred in his affidavit that the above mentioned Rs.3500/- was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party and it was not disbursed to the first opposite party. In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed. The complaint is ordered as follows. The 2nd opposite party will return Rs.3500/-, the amount which is given by the complainant as the price of the CD to the complainant. The 1st opposite party will pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the above mentioned awarded sums will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2010 Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix Documents of the complainant: 1) Ext.A1-Copy of the invoice dated 23/6/10 for Rs.3500/- 2) Ext.A2 not produced Documents of the opposite party: Nil By Order, Senior Superintendent. S/4cs
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
