IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 29th day of February, 2012
Filed on 03/12/2011
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No.394/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Joseph Chacko 1. Focuz Computers, Door No.26/560
JAY-DE-NEST Arabian Shopping Complex
Thekkinkattil Medical College Hospital
Near MMA School Alappuzha
Chathanad, Alappuzha – 1
(By Adv. Tomy Mathew) 2. Focuz Computers
Head Office, Near Manorama
Junction, Adjacent to Focuz
Biwheelers, Kadavanthara
Kochi – 682 036
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Joseph Chacko has filed this complaint before the Forum on 3.12.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties in connection with the purchase of computer set. The allegations are as follows:- He had purchased a computer set from the first opposite party on 1.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.20,750/- and first opposite party had issued cash receipt after accepting the said amount from him. It is alleged that from the very beginning, the compute set was not functioning properly and it developed one trouble after another and he could not use the set to his satisfaction. He contacted the first opposite party and informed the matter regarding the defects of the set. After several requests, the first opposite party sent their engineer to him on 27.08.2011. The Engineer could not rectify the defects permanently. He had entrusted the set with the first opposite party for rectification and that the said computer is still with the first opposite party. First opposite party had not taken any effort to rectify the defects and refused to supply a new one. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They have accepted the notice of this Forum. But they have not appeared before the Forum. Considering their absence of the opposite parties, they were declared as exparte by this Forum on 13.2.2012.
3. Considering the allegations of the complaint, this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complaint is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his case, along with documents – 4 Nos. – Exts.A1 to A4 – marked the documents. Ext.a1 is the Tax invoice dt. 1.11.2010 issued by the first opposite party at the time of purchasing the set from them by the complainant. It shows that an amount of Rs.20,750/- was the price of the said set. Ext.A2 series are the receipts issued by the first opposite party on various dates to the complainant, in connection with the rectification of the defects after collecting charges for repair. The receipts shows the details of the defects occurred in the set. Ext.A3 series are the postal acknowledgement cards. Ext.A4 is the copy of the Advocate notice sent to the opposite parties requesting to settle the matter.
5. We have verified the entire facts of this case carefully and examined the documents produced by the complainant in evidence. Ext.A1 is the Tax invoice produced by the complainant shows that the first opposite party had accepted the sale amount of Rs.20,750/- from the complainant towards the full purchase price. Ext.A2 series shows the bills issued by the first opposite party at the time of repeated rectification of the set. Since the set has no improvements even though several rectification were done by the first opposite party. The complainant had entrusted the set with the first opposite party for curing the defects permanently and that now the set is with the first opposite party. On an overall readings of the entire action of the opposite parties, it can be seen that the first opposite party has not so far curing the defects of the set in a permanent way. The first opposite party has not so far returned the set to the complainant after rectification. By the rectification of the set by the complainant vide Ext.A2 document, it is to be seen that the set has manufacturing defects. In this context, the opposite parties are fully entitled to return the price of the set to the complainant. It is to be further noticed that the opposite parties are not taken any sincere attempt to rectify the defects permanently and they are keeping the set with them indefinitely. The entire action of the opposite parties shows their unfair trade practice and it further shows the deficiency in service and negligence by way of irresponsible attitude to return the set after rectifying the defects or purposeful refusal to pay back its price to the complainant in time. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the mental agony, pain and harassment occurred by the complainant due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties. So they are fully answerable as the above. It is further noticed that after accepted the notice of the Forum, the opposite parties are not cared to appear before the Forum for stating the reasons involved in this matter and for a fair settlement of the issues. It shows their irresponsible attitude towards this issue, so after considering the entire aspects of this case, we are of the strong view that the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complaint.
In the result, we hereby direct the first opposite party to return the price of the set ie. Rs.20,750/- (Rupees twenty thousand seven hundred and fifty only) to the complainant, along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to him, for his mental agony, pain, sufferings physical strain, harassment, inconvenience and costs due to the culpable negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial to rectify the defects permanently and refusal to return the set to the complainant in time, and keeping the set with the opposite parties in an unauthorized way. We further direct the first opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. We further ordered that if this order is violated by the first opposite party, the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the first opposite party for the realization of the amount noted above. We further ordered that the first opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2012.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Tax invoice
Ext.A2 - Customer call slips
Ext.A3 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A4 - Advocate notice
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
