SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Filed on 19.10.2006
Sri. Babu has filed this complaint before the Forum on 19.10.2006 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The contentions of the complainant are as follows:- In order to install the DTP Unit in his shop, he contacted the opposite parties for the purchase of one computer, since the opposite parties are in the field of supply the set, together with its accessories. The opposite parties have published their scheme on 2.3.2000 through the Malayala Manorama daily. On different dates, the opposite parties had collected a sum of Rs.24,000/- from him towards the price of one computer. At the time of accepting the said amount, the opposite parties have stated that the price of the set will come between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and the first opposite party issued a receipt in his hand writing for the said amount of Rs.24,000/-. But against the terms and conditions, the opposite parties have supplied a set which was made locally along with UPS., on April 2006. But the opposite parties have not issued any bill. On enquiry, it was learnt that the set issued was the one purchased by opposite parties earlier in their name and it was second hand one; without any quality. The opposite parties have not issued any bill or warranty card or any other certificate to him and further learnt that the issued set was cost only Rs.15,000/-. On repeated requests, the 2nd opposite party have issued a paper after noting the price of set and further demanded to pay Rs.5250/- again. After assuring to supply good quality set with proper warranty, the opposite parties have supplied a second hand set without any quality and cheated him. On 19.7.2006 he had sent lawyer’s notice stating the whole affairs. But he had not received any reply from opposite parties. On mediation, the opposite parties have agreed to settle the matter before 2.9.2006. But so far, he has not obtained any relief. Hence the complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance before the Forum and filed objection to the complaint.
3. In the objection of the first opposite party, it is stated that the statement of conducting business of supplying computer and accessories jointly by them, are false, and they have no institution by name Ushus or Mahatma Gandhi Educational Foundation. It is stated that the complainant had not approached them for the purchase of computer or they have not collected Rs.24,000/- from him, for the cost of the set and not issued any bill to the complainant. It is further stated that they have not supplied the second hand set to the complainant or issued any bill and not given any document in writing. Since the allegations in the notice are false, he has not set any reply. The complainant has filed the petition out of his personal grudge against him, in connection with the repair of one set entrusted by Sri.Aslam. The complaint has no merit and it is to be dismissed.
4. In the objection, the second opposite party has stated that she had not conducted any business along with the first opposite party. The complainant had not approached her, for supplying the computer set and she had not approached him, for supplying the computer set and she had not accepted any amount from him or not issued any bill and that the statement of supplying the second hand set to him is false. Since the allegations in the notice was false, and she had not sent any reply. Since the allegations in the complaint was false, it is to be dismissed.
5. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amounts of the set from the opposite parties?
3) Compensation and costs.
6. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked and he has been examined and cross examined. Document Ext.A1 is the copy of the paper cutting of Malayala Manorama dt. 2.3.06 to show the price of the similar set ie. Rs.14,989/-. Ext.A2 is the details of amount of the set written in a piece of blank paper. Ext.A3 is the details of amounts of the set, and the details of amounts received by the opposite party and the balance to be paid. Ext.A4 is the Advocate notice. Ext.A5 is the postal receipt. Ext.A6 is the certificate to show that the 2nd opposite party has taken the room by rent for conducting computer firm. Ext. A7 is the details of advertisement through Magazine to show the business of computer by the opposite party. Ext.A8 is the bill of BSNL to the said firm of the opposite party.
7. 2nd opposite party has filed 2 documents – Exts.B1 and B2 – in evidence and marked those documents – Ext.B1 is the receipt for rent for a sum of Rs.1650/- issued to P.V. Thajudheen and Ext.B2 is the Rent deed dt. 3.6.2002 executed by the said Thajudheen.
8. We have carefully examined the entire facts and circumstances of this case and verified the documents produced by the complainant and opposite parties in evidence and perused the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and heard the matter in detail. The allegations of the complainant is that the opposite parties had contacted him and assured that they will supply good quality computer; after included in their special scheme. It is further alleged that the complainant had believed the statement shown in the advertisement dt. 2.3.2006 through the Malayala Manorama, given by the opposite parties. As such, the opposite parties had collected a sum of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant on different dates (Exts.A2 and A9). But contrary to the terms and agreements, the opposite parties had supplied a second hand set having the price of Rs.15,000/-. The opposite parties have also not furnished any bill for the said amount and not issued the warranty card. After accepting the said amount of Rs.24,000/-, the opposite parties have further demanded a sum of Rs. Rs.5250/- from the complainant. The entire action of the opposite parties shows the unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence. Ext.A7 show that they have given advertisement for the sale of the set and documents produced by the complainant clearly shows that opposite parties are fully engaged in the business of supplying computer set to the public. All the contentions raised by the opposite parties regarding the business cannot be accepted and it lacks bona fides. The Exts.B1 and B2 cannot be accepted for the above facts. After examining the facts and circumstances of this matter, and after perusal of the documents, it can be seen that the opposite parties have cheated the complainant by way of giving wrong statements regarding the quality of the computer and persuaded the complainant to purchase the set for a big amount of Rs.24,000/- from him. There is no justification on the part of the opposite parties by raising unnecessary contentions against the complainant and denied the relief sought by the complainant. The entire action of the opposite parties are wholly illegal and unauthorized. For this the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable and they are fully answerable to the complainant for his mental agony, harassment and inconvenience and loss of business. So we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine. Since there is grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties by way of supply low quality computer set to the complainant without furnishing bill, or warranty card and accepted exorbitant amount of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant without any bona fides, the complainant is entitled to get compensation, costs including punitive cost from the opposite parties. The issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the price of the set to the complainant ie. Rs.24,000/- (Rupees twenty four thousand only) with 18% interest from the date of purchase of the set by the complainant, and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the compensation for the mental agony, sufferings, loss of business, physical strain and hardship due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating by way of willful acceptance of exorbitant amount from the complainant towards the price of the set without any bona fides and supplied low quality and second hand computer set to the complainant and pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as punitive cost to the complainant and further pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to comply the order within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite parties for realizing the amounts as per this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A.Babu (Witness)
PW2 - Aslam (Witness)
PW3 - P.V.Thajudheen (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dt. 2.3.06
Ext.A2 - Details of amount of the set written a piece of blank paper
Ext.A3 - Details of amount of the set, and the details of amount received by the
Opposite party and balance amount to be paid
Ext.A4 - Advocate notice
Ext.A5 - Postal receipt
Ext.A6 - Letter certificate
Ext.A7 - Details of advertisement through magazine
Ext.A8 - Bill of BSNL to the said firm of opposite party
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Receipt for rent for a sum of Rs.1650/-
Ext.B2 - Rent deed dt. 3.6.02
// True Copy //
By Order
To Senior Superintendent
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
