IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the   12^th day of   October  2009

CC.210/2008

T.T.Joseph,

Thekkumkatil House,

Vattiamthode,

P.O.Vattiamthode 670 705                                           Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.V.K.George)

1. Mathew

  Uppukandathil House,

  P.O.Kalluvayal, (Via)Iritty.

  (Rep. by Adv.Sreejith Kanhal)

2. M/s.RMP Infotech Private Ltd.,                                Opposite parties

   F1 floor, Apollo Dubai Plaza, 100

   Mahalingapuram, Main Road,

   Chennai 34.

O R DE R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to return back Rs. 6790/- with Rs.10, 000/- as compensation.

            The complainant’s case is that the opposite party is his neighbour and hence they are known to each other. During 2008 May the opposite party approached the complainant and represented that he is the dealer of some famous companies and will provide the products of that companies for the factory price. The opposite party promised to give 3 ¼ meter suit for Rs.4490/- and a microwave over having ISI mark Rs.2300/-. Believing the words the complainant gave the amount to opposite party on 23.5.08 as per invoice dt.4.6.08 and receipt dt.23.5.08. But the opposite party has not delivered the item even after a lapse of two months. But on 20.7.08, the 1^st opposite party has given a packet. The complainant realized that he was cheated by the opposite party while he has opened the packet. The packet contains suit of Slya Ramn’s instead of Vimal without sufficient quality and ISI mark. More over the oven also without company mark or guarantee. So the complainant complained about the same to opposite party. The opposite party told that the suit and microwave oven given by him is having sufficient quality. But on enquiry the complainant realized that the suit supplied is only having value of less than Rs.1000/- and oven having Rs.700/- . But the opposite party was not ready to return back the money or to take back the articles. Hence this complaint.

            On receiving notice from the Forum, the opposite party appeared and filed his version. According to him complainant is not a consumer since he is conducting a chain business and for that purpose he had purchased the above said articles from the son of the opposite party. Since he is working with RMP InfoTech Pvt. Ltd., which is a chain business concern. So the opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant and hence he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. So the complainant has to sue against the above said MP InfoTech Pvt. Ltd., company and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Subsequently 1^st opposite party was absent and hence he is set exparte.

            Later on the above said RMP InfoTech Pvt. Ltd. was arrayed as 2^nd opposite party. Even though notice is acknowledged by 2^nd opposite party they are absent and hence set exparte.

            The main point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 and A2.

            The Exts.A1 is the VAT invoice to the complainant and the receipt date is 23.5.08. As per this the complainant had purchased an Induction cooker (Open Microwave oven) for Rs.2300/- and premium suit for Rs.4490/- and the total bill amount is Rs.6790/-. This proves that the complainant had purchased the above materials from 2^nd opposite party for Rs.6790/-. The complainant contended that 1^st opposite party had worked as a dealer and through 1^st opposite party he had purchased the same. But 1^st opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove his contention that he has no relation with the above transaction. More over 2^nd opposite party has not even appeared even though he had received notice. This itself shows the deficiency of opposite parties. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant either by replacing the suit and induction cooker or refund the value i.e. Rs.6790/- with Rs.2000/- as the cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled to receive the same.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties either to replace the suit and induction cooker as promised or to refund its value Rs.6790/- In addition to this, opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is also directed to return back the suit and induction cooker upon the event of such payment. In default complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection act.

                                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                             Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1& A2.Copy of the vat invoice and instruction manual issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for either side: Nil

/forwarded y order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur