DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th day of August  2012

Present  : Smt.Seena H, President

             : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member  

             : Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member            Date of filing :  24/02/2012

                                                (C.C.No.40/2012)           

Administrator,

M.E.S.English Medium Senior

Secondary Schools,

Pattambi,

Palakkad                                                       -        Complainant

(By Adv.T.V.Pradeesh)

V/s

1. S.Karunakaran,

    S/o.Sridhar,

    Partner,    

    M/s.Pentagram Technologies.

    7/141, Sakthivinayagar Koil Street,

    Sakthivel Nagar, Peravallur,

    Chennai

2. The Manager

    The Professional Couriers,

    Nalanda Building, Behind Bus Stand,

    Shoranur,  Palakkad                                   -        Opposite parties          

(By Adv.Rajesh.M)

O R D E R

            By  Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT

Complainant purchased a 22” wide LG LCD Monitor integrated with resistive touch screen with USB interface from opposite party No.1.  When the system became out of order, complainant despatched it for repairs to 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party courier service. It was despatched from Pattambi on 28/7/11 and 1^st opposite party took delivery of the same on 30/7/11. Later on 4/8/11, 1^st opposite party informed the complainant through G mail that the touch screen monitor of the product was broken and that it might have broken in transport and that physical damage is not  covered  by warranty  etc; It is also further stated that service will be on chargeable basis i.e. on payment of Rs.13,500/- Complainant has despatched the same in proper thermocoal packing and by taking all cautious measures. It was also informed by 2^nd opposite party that 1^st opposite party took delivery of the product in good condition. The product was kept in the custody of 1^st opposite party for 5 days and then only they informed about the damage. Hence damage caused is because of the mishandling and negligence of 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is also negligent  in handling the product. Hence both are jointly and severally responsible  for the damage caused to the product. 1^st opposite party is liable to repair the product free of cost.  Complainant prays for an order directing  the 1^st opposite party either to repair the product free of cost or pay the actual price of the product and both opposite parties to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.

1^st opposite party was set exparte. 2^nd opposite party filed version contending the following. 2^nd opposite party admits that the consignment was sent through their courier service, but they have delivered the same to 1^st opposite party in good condition. The consignment was properly packed when despatched and there is no chance of breaking in transit. The fact that 1^st opposite party has intimated the complainant about the damage only after 5 days itself shows that goods were delivered by 2^nd opposite party in good condition. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of the chief affidavit of complainant, chief affidavit of 2^nd opposite party and Ext.A1 to A7.

Issues for consideration

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service   on the part of 1^st opposite party ?

2.    Whether there is any deficiency in service   on the part of 2^nd  opposite party ?

3.    If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to  ?

Issue No.1

The system  is purchased on 10/8/10 from 1^st opposite party is proved by Ext.A1 invoice. Ext.A5 the copy of the e mail message addressed to the complainant warranty is admitted, though stated physical damage is not applicable in the warranty period. The question here is on whose possession the damage was caused. Both the complainant and 2^nd opposite party has stated that the product was despatched in proper packing and by taking all cautious measures. Ext.A4 Delivery Run sheet shows the consignment was received by 1^st opposite party on 30/7/11 i.e. within  2 days of despatch. In Ext.A3 consignment note, in the column “Received by the consignee in good condition” the representative of 1^st opposite party has signed. That shows that 1^st opposite party has received the consignment in good condition. 1^st opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and hence there is no contra evidence to that one adduced  by the complainant. If the 1^st opposite party has signed the same in a formal way, the responsibility of its consequences will also upon them. 1^st opposite party ought to have verified the consignment before acceptance. As per the affidavit of the complainant, 1^st opposite party has intimated the matter only after 5 days. The evidence on record rule out the possibility of occurrence of damage from the custody of the complainant and 1^st opposite party. Ext.A3 go on to show that 2^nd opposite party has delivered the consignment in good condition to the representative of 1^st opposite party. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the product got damaged from the custody of 2^nd opposite party.

On the basis of the evidence on record it is clear that the act of 1^st opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part.

In the result complaint allowed & we order the following:

1. 1^st opposite party is directed  to repair the monitor including the physical  damage within a period of one month and hand over the same to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only).
2. On failure of repairing the monitor within the ordered period, opposite party is liable to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant in addition to the compensation and cost ordered above. The said amount shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
3. 2^nd opposite party is exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th  day of August  2012.

    Sd/-

Seena.H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

    Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Copy of delivery note issued by Pentagram Technologies dated

              10/8/10

Ext.A2 –  Copy of receipt issued by the Professional Couriers dated 28/7/11          

Ext.A3 – Copy of receipt showing delivery received by consignee in good order /

             condition dated 30/7/11

Ext.A4 – Copy of the delivery run sheet of Professional Couriers, Chennai dated

              30/7/11

Ext.A5 – Copy of G Mail sent by Pentagram Technologies to the complainant

              dated 10/8/11

Ext.A6 – Copy of lawyer notice issued to 1^st opposite party by complainant

             dated 27/8/11

Ext.A7 – Copy of reply issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant dated

             20/9/11

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil