The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a priest working under archdiocese of Thalassery and now doing higher education at Pappal Seminary at Pune of Maharashtra. For the purpose of travel to Maharashtra complaint purchased a laptop bag made by L.P. Company by paying ` 1695.  But with in a week itself the bag become damaged.  Complainant brought the damaged bag to the shop of opposite party and opposite party repaired the bag.  But within two weeks itself the bag become useless.  During Christmas vacation on 23.12.2010 the complaint brought the damaged bag to the opposite party and pointed out the damage was caused to the bag is due to the low quanlity of the materials used for making the bag.  Complainant asked opposite party to replace the damaged bag.  But the opposite party refused to replace the damaged bag with a new one rather insisted to pay for making repair.  The opposite party complained that the bag become damaged due to the rough use of the complainant and insulted him infront of others present there at that time in opposite party’s shop.  The act of opposite party caused much mental agony to the complainant.  The opposite party sold the bag to the complainant offering that the bag is having one year replacement warranty.  The denial of opposite party to replace the bag within the offered warranty period is an act of cheating on the part of opposite party.  The complainant has suffered much inconvenience due to the non-use of the bag which was purchased from opposite party.  The complainant while returning from Pune to Kannur had taken another bag from his friends.  The opposite party induced the complainant to purchase the disputed bag by saying that it is having high quality and is having one year warranty.  Hence the opposite party played unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint.

          After receiving the complaint Forum sent notices.  Opposite party did not made appearance and subsequently called absent and set exparte.

          The main question to be decided is whether or not there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and if so what is the quantum.

          Complainant has not adduced any oral evidence.  But Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.A3 goes to show that on 21.10.2010 complainant had purchased a laptop bag from the opposite party by paying an amount of ` 1695.  It is alleged that the bag become damaged within a week itself.  Complainant brought the damaged bag to the shop of opposite party and the opposite party cured the defect of the bag by repairing the same. But within two weeks itself the bag completely damaged and become useless. On 23.12.10 the complainant again brought the damaged bag to the opposite party and requested to replace the same.  But the opposite party refused to replace the bag and demanded service charge for making further repair saying that the damage caused to the bag was due to rough use by the complainant.  The above act on the part of opposite party humiliated the complainant among other customers.  Complainant issued lawyer notice dated 04.01.2011 the opposite party demanding replacement of the damaged bag with a new one of the same brand and claiming ` 2,000 as compensation for the inconvenience caused and ` 5000 for mental agony suffered by the complainant.  Ext.A1 notice was received by opposite party.  But the opposite party has not complied with the demands made in the notice instead they sent reply denying the allegation  raised in the notice.  It can be seen that opposite party has not cared to appear before the Forum and prove their contention.  Complainant produced damaged bag before the Forum and it is seen damaged which cannot be used.  Here the bag become damaged within two months which indicates clearly that the damage caused due to manufacturing defect.  Hence this is a case wherein, the opposite party has to replace the damaged bag to the complainant or else to refund its price, so as to meet the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the inconvenience and the mental agony suffered by him due to non-exchange of the damaged bag.  Hence it is not possible to assess the damage except the price of the bag in the absence of evidence with regard to the inconvenience and mental agony he has suffered.  Hence we are able to direct the opposite party based only on the actual damage to replace the bag or its cost together with the cost of this litigation.  But in case if he fails to pay the amount as per the order opposite party will also liable to pay compensation.

          In the light of the above discussion we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is thus liable to replace the damaged bag with a new one of the same brand or else to pay ` 1,695 together with a cost of ` 500.  If the opposite party fails to pay the amount as per the order within the time opposite party will also be liable to pay a sum of ` 1000 as compensation.

          In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to replace the damaged bag with a new one of the same brand or else to pay ` 1,695 (Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred and Five only) as price of the bag together with ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is also entitled for a further sum of ` 1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation. Complainant is liable to return the damaged bag on receiving the amount or new bag.  He is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.   

                             Sd/-                     Sd/-              Sd/-

President              Member        Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Copy of lawyer notice dated 04.01.2011.

A2. Acknowledgment card.

A3. Cash receipt dated 21.10.2010.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT