KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.205/2010 JUDGMENT DATED 29.6.2010PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. Mrs.Philomina Augustine, Late Sri.C.J.Alphones House, -- APPELLANTS B.Street,, Mananthavady – 670 645. 2. V.P..Augustine, Late Sri.C.J.Alphones’s House, B.Street, Mananthavady 670 645. Vs. 1. Shibu Thomas, Karmi Networking & Systems, Opp.Panchayath Bus Stand, Mananthavady – 670 645. 2. M/s Acer India Private Ltd., -- RESPONDENTS Mayur Business Centre, Pullepadi Jn, Chittor Road, Kochi – 682035. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF Kalpetta in the case of CC No.49/09 dated 30.1.2010. The appellants are the complainant who filed this appeal for enhancing the amount ordered by the Forum below as compensation and costs. 2. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above original complaint. In sought the complainants had brought a Desk Top Computer and connected accessories from the first respondent and he had completed the supply installation and commissioning of the same, except one item ie. 2GB Pen drive and had taken full and final payment by the same day. Even as on till date he has not supplied 2 GB Pen drive. The complainant was have a case that there was no warranty card and users manual partly system supplied by the second opposite party to the complainants. In the absence of the warranty card, the complainants are not in a position to proceed against the manufacturer. It also noted that without the users manual book they unabled to operate the entire system and other equipments. In the circumstances they filed this complaint for getting compensation and costs. 3. The first opposite party appeared and filed his version. On the strength of his version, the second opposite party impleaded as a necessary party in the case. In the version filed by the second opposite party, he had dishonourated. The first opposite party altogether saying that, the first opposite party had no right to sale the products and also confirmed the complaint. The second opposite party has contended that the first opposite party has not sold their own brand new products to the complainant. According to the version of the second opposite party, the products will be packed and sealed along with the warranty cards and users manuals inside and can be sold only by the authorized dealer, one M/s.S.M.Soft. So, the opposite party was cheating the complainant by pausing as the authorized dealer of the second opposite party and selling spurious products instead of brand new genuine products amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 4. For the complaint, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the first opposite party was examined as OPW1. Documents A1 to A7 documents were marked for the complainant and Ext.B1to B7 documents were marked for the opposite parties. 5. After heard both sides and perused the evidence, the Forum below directed the first opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation to the complainants and cost of the litigation RRs.500/- is also ordered to pay to the complainants. The complainant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the forum below. On this day, this appeal came before this Commission, the appellant is present in person and first and second respondents are called absent. The appellant/complainant submitted that he is coming from Mananthavady and he is required huge loss and sustained difficulties to appear before this Commission on every posting date. This Commission heard himself and on behalf of the first appellant (his wife) and perused the entire case records. It is clear that the first opposite party collected Rs.27686/- for the entire system and accessories and delivered on 10.10.03 in the premises of the complainants. As per the version it is clearly established that the system and other equipments sold by the first respondent not belong to the second respondent. In other words, the second respondent is not a manufacturer of the computer and accessories sold by the first respondent. As per the evidence in this case, it is seeing that the entire system and other accessories either manufactured or assembled by the first respondent alone and he sold this entire items to the complainants. There is no single attempt taken by him to provide guarantee card and other manual etc. along with the system. More over, he is liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice according to the Consumer Protection Act. This is a criminal offence also commuted by the first respondent committed offences under the Sections of Indian Penal Court and intellectual properties Act. 6. This Commission is seeing that the grounds alleged in the appeal memorandum by the appellants is acceptable and both the appellants/complainants paid the entire amount to the 1st opposite party. In the result of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the first respondent/first opposite party. In the result, the order passed by the Forum below is set aside and liable to directed the first respondent to pay Rs.27,686/- along with the cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month after receipt of this order. The first respondent fail to obey the order, he is liable to pay 15% interest for this entire amount from the date of the complaint and the Forum shall proceed against the first respondent as per the Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act (Amendment). If the complainants/appellants desires they have the right to approach to the Superintendent of Police Wayanad for conduct an investigation about the wrongful act committed by the first respondent as per the sections of the Indian Penal code and sections of the Intellectual properties Act. This appeal is allowed and the points of the appeal answered accordingly. ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S/L | 
