Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/16

M/S DELL INDIA PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJEESH RAJ R - Opp.Party(s)

GOKUL R NAIR

04 Jan 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.16/14

JUDGMENT DATED:04.01.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V.JOSE                                                                     : MEMBER

M/s Dell India Pvt.Ltd.,

Diyasree Greens, Ground Floor,

12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challangatta Village,

Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South-560 071.                                : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Gokul R. Nair)

 

            Vs.

1. Rajeesh Raj.R,

S/o Rajappan Nair, Director,

M/s Infra Elevators India Pvt. Ltd.,

35/2223, Opp. St. John Baptist Church,

Pallipradakshina Road, Pallinda,

Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025.     

 

(By Adv: Sri. George Cheriyan Karippaparambil)                 : RESPONDENTS

 

2. M/s Carmel Infosys,

Door No.35/2224, Opp. St. John Baptist Church,

Pallipradakshina Road, Pallinda,

Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025.

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

          The first opposite party, manufacturer, has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the CDRF, Ernakulam (for short the District Forum) in CC.423/13 directing the opposite parties to refund the price of a monitor ie Rs.5202/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase along with cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

2.      Complainant purchased an LCD monitor from the 2^nd opposite party, dealer of the first opposite party.  The monitor had a warrantee for one year.  Within the warrantee period it became defective, and complaint raised the dealer, 2^nd opposite party, replaced it.  Again the replaced monitor got defective and there upon complainant approached the dealer for replacement.  After inspection of the monitor opining that it was a burn damage, the dealer negatived the request and thereupon complainant filed the complaint for refund of the price of monitor with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

3.      Opposite parties after service of notice remained absent and the Forum below passed an exparte order directing them to refund price of the monitor with cost as indicated above.  Aggrieved by that Order the appeal is preferred by first opposite party, manufacturer.

4.      We heard the learned counsel for both sides.  Learned counsel for the appellant (manufacturer) contended that opportunity was denied to contest the proceedings.   The appellant did not receive notice and hence could not appear before the Forum on the date fixed for hearing of the complaint is the further submission of counsel.  The defective monitor was not returned by the complainant and he cannot sustain any claim without returning it is the further submission of counsel.  The defective monitor had been collected by 2^nd opposite party dealer and after its inspection the claim was rejected holding it was burn damage is the submission of counsel for the complainant.  Challenge raised over non-service of notice to opposite parties is also assailed by counsel for the complainant.

5.      Perusing the Order of Forum we find that opposite parties had been served notice of the proceedings but they did not respond to the same and thereupon complaint case was preceded exparte.  We also notice no challenge is raised in the Memorandum of appeal over non-service of notice of complaint to the present appellant and thus causing it denial of opportunity.  So much so challenge now canvassed in hearing over       non-service of notice has to be taken only for its rejection.  We do so.  Perusing the Order we find that Forum below has rightly and correctly ordered refund of the value of defective monitor with cost to the complainant.  When complainant had produced the defective monitor to 2^nd opposite party, dealer of first opposite party, there is no merit in the challenge over non-returning of the monitor.  No ground has been made out to interfere with the Order passed by the Forum, which is found to be just and reasonable.

The appeal is dismissed directing both sides to suffer their cost.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.