BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 05/10/2012

Date of Order : 31/12/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 617/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

On 07-04-2012, the complainant purchased an adapter for his laptop at a price of Rs. 1,250/-. The opposite party provided a duplicate adapter to the complainant and levied a sum of Rs. 1,250/- against the actual price of Rs. 799/-. On 20-04-2012, the complainant caused a letter to the opposite party requesting to replace the duplicate adapter with an original one. At the outset, the opposite party agreed to refund its price, but later went back on their word. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to replace the adapter with an original adapter together with a compensation of Rs. 32,000/-. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-

The complainant purchased an adapter compatible for the Sony laptops. The complainant selected an adapter after verifying the adapter manufactured by different manufacturers. The opposite party agreed to replace or refund the price of the product if the adapter was found defective. But the complainant demanded to refund the price of the adapter. In the notice, the complainant stated another version to replace the adapter with the original company product. The company's product was expensive and so he purchased the adapter made in China. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the complainant and the opposite party who appeared in person.

4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the adapter with original Sony adapter together with a compensation of Rs. 32,000/-?

5. Ext. A4 is the tax invoice issued by the opposite party to the complainant when the adapter was sold at a price of Rs. 1,250/- which reads as follows :-

“Laptop Adapter

Sony 19v, 6 months warranty”

However, even according to the opposite party, he had delivered a duplicate adapter manufactured in China. The above conduct of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The maximum “res-ipsa-liquitur” squarely applies in this case. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get an adapter as stated in Ext. A1 specified in Ext. A3 the web site of the manufacturer of the same. Before approaching this Forum, the complainant caused Ext. A1 letter to the complainant highlighting his grievances to which the opposite party turned a deaf ear. The opposite party ought to have redressed the grievances of the complainant at the outset, which prompted the complainant to approach this Forum to get his grievances ventilated which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/-.

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The opposite party shall deliver an adapter to the complainant as stated in Exts. A3 and A4. In that event, the complainant shall return the disputed adapter to the opposite party simultaneously.

2. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2012.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========