Rajan Daniel filed a consumer case on 24 Mar 2008 against Manager in the Pathanamthitta Consumer Court. The case no is CC/07/109 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Pathanamthitta
CC/07/109
Rajan Daniel - Complainant(s)
Versus
Manager - Opp.Party(s)
24 Mar 2008
ORDER
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Doctor's Lane Near General Hospital,Pathanamthitta,Kerala,Phone:04682223699 consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/109
Rajan Daniel
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Manager
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Jacob Stephen 2. LathikaBhai 3. N.PremKumar
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President: The complainant Sri. Rajan Daniel has filed this complaint against the opposite party, the Manager, Fairex Computers, Pathanamthitta for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts in brief of this complaint is as follows: The complainants foreign made computer is found not working. He contacted the opposite party for repairing the computer. The opposite party sent technicians to the complainants residence. They have inspected the computer and told the complainant that they want to take the computer to their shop for repairing and it will be returned after 2 days. The complainant agreed this and the technicians took the computer to their shop. After 2 days, they informed that they have no facility to check the mother board of the computer, so it has to be sent to Ernakulam, which is also agreed by the complainant. After one month, on equiry, the complainant was informed that the mother board is beyond repair and hence a new mother board is required which costs Rs.4,750/-. Since the amount demanded is very high, he asked the opposite party to return the computer. Accordingly, they have returned the computer after fitting faulty mother board, memory and hard disk of some other computer. Thereafter, the complainant contacted a firm at Ranni for repairing the computer for an amount of Rs.3,200/-. A technician from the said firm came to the complainants residence for repairing. He opened the set for fitting mother board and found that all the parts are dismantled. He had fitted the dismantled parts and the mother board. But the computer was not working. Later, he found that all the main parts of his computer were seen replaced by defective parts of some other brand. The action of the opposite party is a cheating and is deficiency of service. Therefore, he sent a registered notice to the opposite party regarding it. The opposite party received the notice, but he has not settled the issue so far. Therefore, he filed this complaint for allowing Rs.10,020/- as cost of the mother board, memory, hard disk, compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings. 3. In this case, the opposite party did not turned up for defending the case. Hence he was set exparte and he remains as such. 4. The points for consideration in this O.P. are the following:- (1)Whether this complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3)Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence in this O.P. consists of oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1. Exts.A1, A1(a) and A1(b) were marked as per the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. Since the opposite party is exparte, there is no evidence for the opposite party. After the closure of the evidence, the complainant was heard. 6. Points 1 to 3: The complainant has filed this case against the opposite partys deficiency of service in destroying the computer by removing original parts by fitting defective parts of certain other brand. In order to prove the allegations against the opposite party, the complainant has not adduced any evidence before this Forum. He has not even produced the computer before the Forum. In a case like this, expert evidence is highly necessary. But the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence. The exhibits marked in this case are the copy of the registered notice sent to opposite party, and its postal receipt and the acknowledgment card. This alone and the oral evidence of PW1 are not sufficient to prove the complainants case. 7. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to consider the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Hence the complaint is not allowable. 8. In the result, this C.C. is dismissed. No costs. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of August, 2008. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Rajan Daniel. Exhibits marked on the side kof the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the registered notice dated 9.10.2007 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. A1(a) : Postal receipt of Ext.A1 notice. A1(b) : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A1. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) Rajan Daniel, Kodiyattu Puthen Veedu, Kaipattoor P.O.,Pathanamthitta 689648 . (2) The Manager, Fairex Computers, Near Anurag Theatre), Pathanamthitta (3) The stock file.
......................Jacob Stephen ......................LathikaBhai ......................N.PremKumar
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.