CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 222/2011
Saturday, the 28th day of April, 2012
Petitioner : P.J. Chacko
Parasseril House,
Athirampuzha P.O
Parolickal, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Benny Joseph)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Sarathchandran,
Sreedharavilasam,
S.H Mount P.O
Kottayam.
2) Rojo,
Cyborg Computers,
Vadukalil Buildings,
Thottackadu
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 22..8..1011 is as follows:
Petitioner on 29..7..2004 purchased a Samsung Hard Disk from 1st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 3,362/-. The said Hard Disk showed complaints in the year 2009 and accordingly on 15..8..2009 petitioner purchased a 160 GB Hard Disk, having 3 year warranty, from the second opposite party as instructed by first opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2850/-
Thereafter on 16..9..2010 the said 160 GB Hard Disk also got damaged. On 23..9..2010 second opposite party collected the Hard Disk from the petitioner and replace the same with another Hard Disk as a temporary arrangement. On 8..1.1..2010 the replaced Hard Disk also got damaged on 15..11..2010. Second opposite party collected the same from the petitioner. But, so far, second opposite party has not cared to return the 160 GB Hard Disk, to the
-2-
petitioner duly repaired. According to the petitioner he made repeated demands to the opposite party to return the original 160 GB Hard Disk duly repaired or to pay an amount of Rs. 2,850/-. On 31..1..2011 petitioner issued a registered lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding return of the Hard Disk or refund of the amount paid along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Notice of first opposite party received. But notice of second opposite party was returned un served. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in supplying an inferior quality Hard Disk amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the petition.
Notice of first opposite party was served. First opposite party is set ex-parte. Petitioner filed IA-233/2012 for deleting second opposite party from the party array. Petition was allowed and second opposite party is removed accordingly.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
The crux of the case of petitioner is that Hard Disk supplied by the first opposite party is of inferior quality. Second opposite party is the authorized service centre of the first opposite party. On 29..7..2004 petitioner purchased a Hard Disk from the first opposite party, paying an amount of
Rs. 3,263/-, as a part of his computer system, as instructed by first opposite party petitioner purchased a 160 GB Hard Disk from the authorized service center of the first opposite party for an amount of Rs. 2850/-. On 16..9..2010 said Hard Disk also become non functional and as a temporary arrangement
-3-
another Hard Disk was installed. On 8..11..2010 replaced hard disk also become defunct.. Second opposite party has not cared to return the original 160 GB Hard Disk after repairing the same. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. In our view in the lack of contra evidence we were constrain to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. In our view act of the opposite party in supplying an inferior
quality Hard Disk and non return of the repaired defective Hard Disk amounts to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed. In the result opposite party is ordered to refund Rs. 2,850/- to the petitioner with 18% interest from 16..9..2010 till realization. First opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of lawyers notice
Ext. A2: Copy of postal receipt
Ext. A3: Return the lawyers notice
Ext. A4: Photo copy of cash invoice Dtd: 29..7..2004
Ext. A5: Cash invoice Dtd: 15..08..2009
Documents for the Opposite party
Nil.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
