DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President              

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member           Date of filing: 11/03/2022                             

     CC/43/2022

Shiny John

K.P.John, Pulinchottil House

Chuvannamannu (P.O), Vazhukkumpara                        -  Complainant

(Party in Person)

V/s

1. Shameer

   Idea Computer Service Centre

   Vadakkenchery, Show Tower

   PIN - 678 683

2. Renjith

   Idea Computer Service Centre

Vadakkenchery, Show Tower

   PIN - 678 683                                                                  -   Opposite parties

   (Parties in person)

O R D E R 

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant entrusted the repair of her Epson printer with the opposite party firm.  After 3 days the opposite party returned the equipment without rectifying the defect and demanded Rs. 4,500/- as charges.  When a complaint was lodged with the local police, the opposite party agreed to do the repair and make the printer functional. 

          The opposite party took the printer to another service centre by name “GEO System” for changing the mother board and charged Rs. 7,800/-  When the issue was taken to the police again the opposite party refused to do anything further in the matter.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking a compensation of Rs. 27,500/-

 2.  Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  They entered appearance and filed version denying all the charges, but admitted the fact that the complainant had entrusted the repair work of the printer to them.       

3.   The following issues were framed for consideration

1. Complaints of the printer being admitted whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the person arrayed as opposite parties 1 and 2 necessary parties?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. Reliefs if any grantable?

4.   Though the complainant filed an IA (241/22) for the appointment of an Expert Commission to inspect the printer and report, she failed to submit the panel.  Hence the IA was dismissed.      

5.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 as evidence.  The opposite parties also filed their proof affidavit without any documents.  Ext. A1 and Ext. A2 are the bills issued in the name of the complainant by “M/s Geo Systems” for the repair of the printer for Rs. 6,200/-  and Rs. 1,620/- respectively and do not disclose any relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.          

6.  Issue 1

The evidence adduced by the complainant as shown above, is in no way sufficient to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.      

7.  Issue 2   

      The 1^st opposite party has submitted in the version filed that he is the owner of the opposite party firm “M/s Idea Solution” (not “Idea Computer Service Centre” as mentioned in the complaint) and the 2^nd opposite party is the employee of the firm.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint. 

8.  Issues 3, 4 and 5    

      In the absence of any material evidence to link the complainant to the opposite parties and also to prove any prima facie case against the opposite parties the complaint is dismissed as one without any merits.

          Pronounced in open court on this the 25^th day of May, 2023.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                      Vinay Menon V

                                          President                                             

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                 Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1 : Estimate received from “M/s Geo Systems” for Rs. 6,200/-

Ext. A2 : Tax Invoice received from “M/s Geo Systems” for Rs. 1,620/-

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

Cost:  Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.