Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/810

STATE PROJECT OFFICER IT SCHOOL PROJECT - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUNJAHAMMED FAROOQ C S - Opp.Party(s)

M NIZARUDHEEN

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 810/15

JUDGMENT DATED:31.03.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

1. State Project Office,

IT @ School Project, Poojappura P.O,                                     

Thiruvananthapuram.

: APPELLANTS

2. District Co-ordinator,

IT @ School Project,

District Project Office,

Civil Station, Malappuram.

 

(By Adv: Sri. M. Nizarudheen)

 

            Vs.

 

1.         Kunjahammed Farooq C.H,

Pulliyalthodi House,

Kadungath,

Koottilangadi,

Malappuram District.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2.         R P Info Systems Pvt. Ltd.,

Aysha Tower, 43/2614,

K & K 5 Sastha Temple Road,

Kaloor, Kochi-18, Now Functioning at its-

Corporate Office, 4^th floor, Regent House-12,

Govt. Palace (East), Kolkata-700 069.

 

 

 

3. R.P. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd.,

Saras Park Inn, Ground floor,

BTR Lane, Melethampanoor,

Gandhari Ammankovil Road P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram.

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.  P.Q. BARKATH  ALI,  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the  opposite parties 3 and 4 in CC.241/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated May 12, 2015, directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the laptop of Rs.17,770/- with interest along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant is a school teacher in P.P.T.M.Y.H School, Vengara.  He purchased a chirag branded laptop for a consideration of Rs.17,770/- under the Lap top/Net book of teachers scheme conducted by IT @ School from the office of the 3^rd  opposite party.  Within the warranty period it has become defective and replaced by the 1^st opposite party by another one. Within few days it also became defective.  Complainant had gone to Kozhikkode and entrusted the defective computer to them who replaced it with another one.  Unfortunately the third one also having some defects.  Iit was reported to the opposite parties.  But they did not respond properly.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint for return of the price of the Laptop and claimed compensation.

3.      Only the opposite parties 3 and 4 contested the matter before the Forum.  First and second opposite parties are, M/s R.P. Info Systems Private Limited who remained absent before the Forum.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 in their version denied the allegations in the complaint, but admitted the purchase of the laptop by the complainant and further contented thus before the Forum.  These opposite parties only arranged a common platform to the teachers’ community and various companies to provide lap top for cheaper prices.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 have no consumer relationship with the complainant.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      On the side of the complainant he filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A6 before the Forum.  No evidence was adduced by the contesting opposite parties 3 and 4.  On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to refund the price of the lap top Rs.17,770/- with interest and a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      The counsel for the appellants argued that they have nothing to do with the sale and warranty assured to the complainant by the company who supplied the lap top and that therefore for the defect caused to the lap top, they cannot be made responsible.   There is no substance in the above contention.  The purchase of the lap top from the opposite parties 1 and 2 under the Lap top/Net book for the teachers’ scheme conducted by the OPs 3 and 4 is admitted.  The document produced by the complainant show that the same is defective.  Admittedly the lap tops are supplied under the Lap top/Net book for the teachers’ scheme conducted by the 3^rd and 4^th OPs and it was on their instigation complainant purchased the lap top.  Therefore the appellants cannot be now contend that they have nothing to do the transaction.  As the lap top has become defective and completely useless the opposite parties are bound to either replace the same or to pay the price of the same to the complainant.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

8.      Forum has directed the opposite parties to refund the price of the lap top Rs.17,770/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI       :  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V. JOSE          : MEMBER

 

VL.