KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 202/2020

JUDGMENT DATED: 22.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 136/2019 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

I Tech Solutions, Surya Building, S.H. Mount P.O., Kottayam -06.

(By Advs. Nithya S.& Priya Pillai)

RESPONDENT:

Mathew Scaria, Aby Mathew Associates, 2/268, Kochuparampil Building, Kanjirappara P.O., Kottayam residing at Kochuparampil House, Pulickal Kavala P.O., Vazhoor.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 136/2019 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short “the District Commission”). 

2.  The respondent purchased a desktop computer from the appellant on 25.10.2018 for an amount of Rs. 19,320/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only). The said computer was found to be defective within two weeks of its purchase.  The respondent informed the appellant about it.  However, the appellant did not incline to rectify the defects.  Finally, the respondent deposited the computer with the appellant on 06.12.2018 for repair and maintenance.  The respondent would contend that since the appellant did not attend the complaint of the computer for a period of 45 days, the respondent was forced to purchase another computer.  The act of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

3.  Though notice was served on the appellant, the appellant did not incline to appear before the District Commission.  The appellant also did not file any version.  In the said circumstances, the District Commission passed the order impugned, relying on the proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 and A2 produced by the respondent and directed the appellant to rectify the defects in the computer, free of cost.  The District Commission further directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as costs to the respondent.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

4.  Heard. 

5.  The contention of the respondent is that the respondent purchased a desktop computer from the appellant on 25.10.2018 and the said computer ceased to function within two weeks of its purchase.  The matter was intimated to the appellant.  However, the appellant did not attend the complaint of the respondent for a period of 45 days. 

6.  The appellant did not file any version.  The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was trying for a settlement and it was only because of the said reason that the appellant did not file any version.  Whatever be the reason, the fact remains that the appellant did not file any version before the District Commission within the statutory period.  The appellant also did not incline to cross-examine the respondent though the respondent filed proof affidavit.

7.  Ext. A1 would show that the respondent purchased a desktop computer for an amount of Rs. 19,320/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only) from the appellant on 25.10.2018.  Ext. A2 would show that the said computer was entrusted with the appellant by the respondent on 06.12.2018 for repairing the said computer.  It was contended by the respondent that even though the computer ceased to function within two weeks of its purchase, the appellant did not incline to attend the complaint of the computer despite due intimation given by the respondent.  The said aspect is reiterated in the proof affidavit filed by the respondent as well.  There is absolutely no material before the commission inconsistent with or contrary to the evidence of the respondent and Exhibits A1 and A2 in this regard. Therefore, the District Commission rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in this regard.  The District Commission had taken a very lenient view and directed the appellant to rectify the defects of the desktop computer and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)  and costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the respondent.  The compensation and the costs ordered by the District Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary, harsh or excessive calling for interference by this Commission.  Having gone through the relevant inputs, as discussed above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission.  In the said circumstances, we confirm the same. 

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed and the order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 136/2019 stands confirmed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb