BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 23rd day of December, 2008
C.C.No. 118/08
Between:
D.Ravi Kumar, S/o. D.Sanjanna,
R/o.H.No.3-155, Hussainapuram Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District … Complainant
Versus
M/s.Tokyo Japan Centre, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri Surendar Surana,
T.J.C.Multi Media, 5-1-750, Haridas Market, Koti, Hyderabad-500 001. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.118/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to deliver the new system of same model or to return the value of the system i.e, Rs.90,000/- , Rs.500 per day from 28-11-2007, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that on 06-02-2006 the complainant purchased a Computer Matrox R.T.X 100 Xtreme from opposite party at Hyderabad for Rs.90,000/- . At the time of said purchase the complainant paid Rs.62,000/- in cash and paid the remaining balance amount of Rs.28,000/- through online account from ICICI Bank , Kurnool. The opposite party gave one year warranty and later on payment it was extended for another two years. While such is so on 20-11-2007 the said computer started giving troubles , the complainant gave the R.T.X 100 board of Computer to opposite party for repairs, but the opposite parties did not return the said board after repairs and postponed the matter on the pretext that the repairs were not yet completed. The complainant further submits that he entrusted the article to opposite party for repairs during warranty period and it is the opposite party to carry out the repairs and return the article to the complainant , but the opposite party did not return the article after its repairs and the complainant suffered loss of Rs.500/- per day for non delivery of said article and alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) defective material receipt No. 680 dated 20-11-2007 , (2) delivery challan dated 06-02-2006 infavour of complainant , (3) xerox copy of printed voucher containing terms and conditions , (4) office copy of legal notice dated 20-02-2008 along with postal receipts and acknowledgement , (5) online pay in slip issued by ICICI Bank, Kurnol on
06-02-2006 , (6) telephone call receipt dated 06-02-2006 and bill No. 099 for Rs.13/0 issued by sai digital photo studio , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version .
5. The written version of the opposite party denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant purchased a Computer Matrox R.T.X 100 on 06-02-2006 from opposite party at Hyderabad and the said product was under one year warranty and the same was extended for another two years . As per the terms of warranty certificate no warranty will be provided for physical damages. It further submits that in the month of November, 2007 the complainant approached opposite party with damaged R.T.X Board and the opposite party informed said thing to the manufacturer and in turn informed the complainant that as per company rules physical damages of said board will be done with costs and the complainant left the damaged product with opposite party and did not turn up. It also submits that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint within the jurisdiction of this forum as the product was purchased in Hyderabad and warranty period was extended at Hyderabad and the opposite party is residing at Hyderabad and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with cost.
6. In support of their case the opposite party relied on the following document viz. (1) warranty certificate dated 06-02-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above document is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties .?
8. It is the simple case of the complainant that he purchased a Computer Matrox R.T.X 100 on 06-02-2006 from opposite party at Hyderabad vide Ex.A2 and the said computer was covered under warranty. The complainant submitted that the said computer RTX board was giving troubles from 20-11-2007 and there on approached opposite party at Hyderabad for its repairs. The opposite party after contacting the manufacturer informed the complainant the damages to RTX board are physical damages and are not covered under the warranty and on payment only the said board will be repaired. Thereafter , the complainant approached the forum for reliefs as the opposite party is not getting the RTX board repaired under the warranty.
9. On the other side the opposite party in his written version averments submitted there is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint as the opposite party is residing at Hyderabad and the warranty was given at Hyderabad only and the article was also delivered at Hyderabad for attending its repairs and the cause of action for its non rectification also is arising at Hyderabad only. Therefore the grievances of the complainant as is arising at Hyderabad , hence this complaint is not entertainable in this forum for want of territorial jurisdiction .
9.. Consequently , the complaint of complainant is remaining devoid of merit and force , and it is dismissed.
- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23rd day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Defective material receipt No.680 dated 20-11-2007.
Ex.A2. Delivery challan dated 06-02-2006 in favour of complainant .
Ex.A3. Xerox copy of printed broacher containing terms and conditions.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice dated 20-02-2008 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.
Ex.A5. On line pay in slip issued by ICICI Bank Limited, Kurnool on 06-02-2005.
Ex.A6. Telephone call receipt dated 06-02-2006.
Ex.A7. Bill No.099 for Rs.13/- issued by sai digital photo studio.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Warranty certificate dated 06-02-2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite partes
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on
