DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 15th day of September 2023
C.C.67/2020
Complainant
K. Haridas
Nandanam House,
Odiyil Parambu,
Kakkodi, Kozhikode,
673 611 (Pin)
Opposite Parties
- Reliance Digital,
Wayanad Road,
Kunnamangalam,
Kozhikode -673571
- Hi Tech Information Pvt Ltd,
5/1064C, Shiga apartment,
Kottram Cross road,
East nadakkavu,
Eranhippalam Post,
Calicut -673006.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 2/12/2018 the complainant purchased a Lenovo Laptop from the first opposite party paying Rs. 35,998/-. But from the date of purchase, the laptop showed complaint in the Key Board and getting hang always. It was given for service during the warranty period on 23/11/2019. But the complaint was not fully rectified. Again it was given for service/repairs on 29/01/2020 and he had to pay Rs. 833/- towards repair charges. But the problem persisted still and the Laptop is not working properly. Hence the complaint for replacement of the Laptop with a new one or to direct the opposite parties to repair the same under the warranty or to pay compensation of Rs. 36,000/-.
- The opposite parties were set ex-parties.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and Costs.
- The complainant filed affidavit.
- Point No. 1 :The complainant has approached this commission with a grievance that the Lenovo Laptop purchased by him from the first opposite party paying Rs. 35,998/- became defective and the opposite parties could not rectify the defects. He is seeking replacement of the defective Laptop with a new one or a direction to the opposite parties to repair the same under the warranty or to pay compensation of Rs. 36,000/-.
- The complainant filed affidavit wherein it is reiterated that the key board of the Laptop became faulty 5 times and the problem could not be resolved by the opposite parties.
- The manufacturer is not in the party array and the complainant sought for time to implead the manufacturer. But thereafter the complainant remained absent and no impleading petition was filed. In the nature of the allegations and the reliefs sought for, the manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings. But the complainant did not take any steps to implead the manufacturer. On the other hand, he remained absent continuously. The fact that the opposite parties remained ex-parte does not automatically entitles the complainant to get the relief sought for. It is for the complainant to prove the allegations in the complaint by impleading necessary parties and by adducing proper evidence. But the complainant in this case has utterly failed to do so. He chose to remain absent continuously. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing the matter. No deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged is proved against the opposite parties.
- Point No. 2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief sought for and the complaint is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 15thday of September, 2023.
Date of Filing: 17/02/2020
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
True copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
