The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainant is an Asst.Manager in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., The complainant purchased a laptop bag for Rs.2200/- on 16-06-09 from the opposite party vide bill no.349305. Within a few days after the purchase, some problem arose with the lock of the bag, as a result the bag could not be locked properly. Thus the very purpose of buying the bag was defeated. The complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party and the opposite party promised her that they will change the lock and then the bag will be perfectly alright. Believing these words the complainant entrusted the bag to the opposite party for changing the lock. Assuring that the lock was changed, the bag was given back to the complainant by the opposite party. But on the  next day the very same complaint developed again. Because of this the complainant insisted for getting the bag replaced or she insisted for getting her money back.  On each time when the complainant approached the opposite party the opposite party assured that they would replace it. But nothing was done by the opposite party in furtherance of their assurance. According to the complainant this act is a clear act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the refund of the purchase price Rs.2,200/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 16^th June 09, compensation Rs.5000/- and litigation cost Rs.2000/-.

            Notice was served to the opposite party. But the opposite party was called absent and hence set expartee.

Points for consideration are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts A1 to A3

            Heard the complainant and perused the documents placed on record. The

complainant produced the copy of the receipt dtd.16/06/09 for Rs.2,200/-. The complainant averred that within a few days after the purchase, some problem arose with the lock of the bag, as a result the bag could not be locked properly. The complainant further averred that evenafter the repairing done by the opposite party, the very same complaint persisted. The complainant produced the copy of the lawyer’s notice dtd 07-1 2-09 issued to the opposite party and it is marked as Ext.A2. It is significant to note that the said advocate’s notice was not replied by the opposite party. The complainant alleged that the opposite party has not replaced the defective laptop bag inspite of their assurance. As the opposite party chose not to contest, the allegations levelled against the opposite party remain unchallenged. In our view the act of opposite party in supplying low quality bag for such a huge price is a clear case of deficiency in service. In our opinion what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.1 the complaint is allowed.

            The opposite party will refund the purchase price of the laptop bag Rs.2,200/- along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/-to the complainant. At the time of refunding the opposite party can take back the defective laptop bag.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

 

Ext.A1-Copy of the receipt dtd 16-06-09

Ext.A2-Office copy of the lawyer’s notice dtd 07/12/09

Ext.A3-Original acknowledgement card

Nil

 

By Order,