BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN                                : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                               : MEMBER

C.C. No. 411/2021 Filed on 29/12/2021

ORDER DATED: 23/08/2022

ORDER

SRI. P.V. JAYARAJAN,  PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.  After accepting the notice 1^st opposite party appeared before this Commission on 08/02/2022.  Notice issued to the 2^nd opposite party was served, but not appeared.  Hence this case adjourned to 11/04/2022 for version of 1^st opposite party and appearance of 2^nd opposite party.  When the case came up for consideration on 11/04/2022 both 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties were absent and not filed version and hence 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties were called absent and set ex parte. 

The case of the complainant in short is that on 04/05/2021 complainant purchased a lap top from the 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.39,490/-.  The said lap top was purchased by the complainant for the educational purpose of his son.  According to the complainant the lap top was not properly functioning just after 2 months from the date of purchase.  Immediately the matter was reported to the opposite party.  Because of the supply of defective lap top, after accepting an amount of Rs.39,490/- the studies of the complainant’s son was disrupted.  Subsequently in order to continue the classes without interruption, the opposite party made some alternative arrangements by providing OTG cable facility.  At that time the opposite party assured to rectify the defects of the lap top immediately.  Complainant further submitted that even after 4 months period, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect Subsequently  when the spare parts were available, the opposite party demanded Rs.3,465/- with GST + service charge.  The complainant submitted that at the time of purchase of the lap top the opposite party offered one year complete warranty and also informed the complainant that there is a provision to extend the warranty by paying additional amount.  As the demand of additional amount and service charge was within the warranty period, according to the complainant the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Complainant further submits that due to the frequent non functioning of the lap top, the complainant’s son’s classes were disrupted, by which the complainant’s son and other family members had suffered mental agony and financial loss.  According to the complainant by supplying the defective lap top after accepting an amount of Rs.39,490/-, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  The complainant submits that he is entitle for replacement of the defective laptop with a new one and also entitle for compensation from the opposite parties for the mental agony and financial sufferings met by him.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  The opposite parties being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.

The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant.  There is no evidence from the side of the opposite party

Points to be considered.

     1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

     2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief claimed?

 3) Order as to cost?

Heard.  Perused records and affidavit.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P3 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the invoice for Rs.39,490/- issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.P2 is the computer message showing the spare parts description and the amount of the same.  Ext.P3 is the computer massage by the opposite party demanding additional service charges.  As the opposite parties were not entered appearance and filed version or documents, there is no contra evidence to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  In the above circumstances we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties.  We find that by swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P3 documents, the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint against the opposite parties.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  We also find that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  As the mental agony and financial loss were caused due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussion, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the lap top by taking back the defective lap top from the complainant or in the alternative to pay Rs.39,490/- with 6% interest from 04/05/2021 along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) and Rs.2,500/-  (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of this proceeding within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of remittance /realization.      

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 23^th  day of August, 2022.    

   Sd/-

                                                P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT

    Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR             : MEMBER   

                Sd/-

                                                                        VIJU V.R                    : MEMBER   

R        

C.C. No. 411/2021

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT