DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 23rd day of January 2010.
Present : Smt. Seena.H (President)
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.94/2008
Sreekanth.M. S/o. N. Sreekumar Vellerikkattu Veedu Kattussery Alathur Palakkad – - Complainant (Party in person) V/s Noby Philip Faith Computers Door No.V.P.4/1233 T B N.H. Road Vadakkancherry Palakkad ( Adv. O.C. James) - Opposite party
O R D E R By Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member The complaint in short is as follows. On 07/06/08 the complainant had purchased a WIPRO 22 TFT Computer from the opposite party. At the time of purchase, opposite party offered one Digital Camera of Brand Yatchika worth Rs.7,000/-. When the complainant enquired about the Digital Camera the opposite party informed him that it will be given after paying full amount. Complainant paid the full amount. On 05/09/2008, after repeated requests, opposite party had given a small Web camera worth Rs.1,500/- Opposite party also informed the complainant that they had offered the digital camera only for the purpose of advertisement. Moreover the computer purchased by the complainant has developed a white dot in the monitor in its warranty period itself. When the complainant informed this defect to the opposite party, they are not ready to cure the defect by saying that it is the liability of the manufacturer.
The above act of opposite party has caused mental agony and loss to the complainant and hence complainant prays for an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. - 2 - Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. It is true that the complainant purchased a computer of make and brand WIPRO from the opposite party. The said computer was functioning properly without any defect. The complainant purchased the above said system on a credit basis. Complainant promised to make the payment within the stipulated time, but failed to do so. Thereafter the opposite party insisted for the balance payment and the was cleared only after repeated demands. The opposite party has not offered any digital camera to the complainant. The complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed
Both parties filed affidavit. Exhibit A1 & A2 was marked on the side of the complainant without any objection. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite party. Commission report was marked as Exhibit C1.
Heard both parties. Issues to be considered are: 1. Whether the opposite party has exercised any unfair trade practice? 2. If so, what is the relief and costs?
Issues 1 & 2 The brief facts of the complainant is that he purchased a WIPRO 22 TFT computer from the Opposite party. At the time of purchase of the computer the opposite party offered one digital camera of Brand Yatchika worth Rs.7000/-. After the payment of full amount the complainant demanded the digital camera. Instead of digital camera complainant was given only a small Web camera worth Rs.1,500/-. Opposite party informed the complainant that they had offered digital camera only for the purpose of advertisement. Complainant produced a notice which was said to be given by the opposite party at the time of purchasing the computer. The said document marked as Exhibit A1 shows that there was an offer of a digital camera with WIPRO computer. The act of opposite party in advertising digital camera and supplying web camera is an unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. - 3 - Another contention of the complainant is that the computer purchased by him was also defective. In the warranty period itself a white dot was developed in its monitor. When the complainant informed this defect to the opposite party they were not ready to cure the defect by saying that it is the liability of the manufacturer . The complainant has no contact with the manufacturer and so the manufacturer was not made a party. To prove the defect of the computer a commissioner was appointed. According to the commission report (Ext.C1) the problem of the computer was minute Pixele (Pixele is dead). So the commissioner report is also in favour of the complainant.
From the above discussions we are of the view that the act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice on their part.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. On payment of full amount complainant shall return the Web Camera to the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd day of January 2010. PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD)
- 4 -
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant 1. Ext. A1 – Advertisement notice of Faith computers 2. Ext. A2 - Invoice No. 99 of Faith Computers dated 07/07/08 for Rs.35,990/-
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibit Ext. C1 – Commission Report of Solo Infosys dated 17/05/09 Costs Allowed. Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
Date of fair copy: 15/02/2010 Date of despatch:
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
