DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 25^th  day of August 2023

C.C.10/2022

Complainant

          A.M.Anil Kumar

          S/o kanaran,

          Anay Nivas,

          Nellippathazham,

          Chevayoor, Kozhikode.

Opposite Party

Lap Top Clinic,

      Petro Inforserve,

      First floor, Bassom Complex,

      Pushpa Junction, Kallai Road,

      Kozhikode

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, which is the authorised service centre of the laptop manufactured by H.P Company.

2. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
3. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are ;

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?

      2. Reliefs and costs.

4. The complainant has filed affidavit.
5. Point No. 1:  The case of the complainant is that he purchased a HP laptop for his son through flipkart paying Rs. 35,890/- with a warranty of one year. The laptop was delivered on 27/10/2020. But the laptop became faulty on 18/10/2021. The complainant alleges that the opposite party neglected to repair the laptop and demanded huge amount stating that there were issues with the mother board and display and that the same had to be replaced.
6. The complainant has filed affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and prayed for time to implead necessary parties. But thereafter he did not turn up. No steps were taken to implead the seller or the manufacturer. The mere fact that the opposite party was set ex-parte does not automatically entitles the complainant to get an order as prayed for. As per the affidavit, the complainant is seeking refund of the price of the laptop along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. It is for the complainant to implead proper parties and adduce satisfactory evidence to prove his case so as to entitle him to get an order as prayed for. But the complainant herein is continuously absent inspite of giving intimation from this Commission and it appears that he is not interested in pursuing the matter. Deficiency of service as alleged is not proved.
7. Point No.2:  In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.    

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25^thday of August, 2023.

Date of Filing: 13-01-2022.

                                              Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                          MEMBER                                              MEMBER

APPENDIX

NIL

  Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                               Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                     MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                            True copy,

                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                    Assistant Registrar.