IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 8th day of March, 2010
Filed on 27.02.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.103/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.S.Raveendranath, 1. Sri.Antony Cleetus,
Rajniketh, Innovative Business Solutions,
Puthuppally North-690 527, 38/241A/MA Residence, Karshaka Road,
Kayamkulam, (Brother Mavooras Cross Road),
Alappuzha District. High Flat – Ernakulam-20.
(By Adv.Vidhu M Unnithan)
2. The Director, RMP Infotech Private Ltd.,
F1 First Floor, Appollo Dubai Plaza,
100, Mahalingapuram Main Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
(By Adv.P.A.Sivarajan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case succinctly is as follows: - The complainant purchased a Micro Wave Oven for an amount of Rs.6,750/-(Rupees six thousand seven hundred and fifty only) from the opposite parties. The complainant was actually, enticed by the opposite parties to purchase the same. The opposite parties issued welcome letter and congratulation letter for the same. Sadly, the said Micro wave oven developed malfunctioning shortly. Even on activation itself, the same displays defect, and in a short while the oven fell inoperative. The complainant intimated this factum of impairment of the oven to the opposite parties. The opposite parties tendered assurances liberally of correcting the impairment. Above and beyond, the opposite parties did nothing as to the damaged oven. The complainant having no course open, on 5th September 2007 sent the said oven to the opposite arties. The complainant sustained monetary as well as mental woes. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up, yet did not make it a point to file version or to fight the complainant case.
2. The complainant’s evidence, filed proof affidavit and the documents Exbts Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties no evidence appears to have been adduced.
3. On the basis of the contention of the complainant, the sole issue that comes up before us for consideration is:-
Whether the complainant entitled to the relief sought for?
4. We meticulously perused the pleadings in the complaint. On a bare perusal of the complaint itself, it is unfolded that the complainant has joined the net work business scheme. It is pertinent to note that, the subject matter of the case of the complainant is a compliment obtained to encourage the complainant's future activity. In this context, we are of the view that any defect or deficiency if any to an article so availed as compliment will not give rise to a consumer dispute. To put it otherwise, the said article has no consideration, and as such, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties in the said perspective. We, regret, we hold that the complainant case does not merit acceptance. Needless to say, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 8th day of March, 2010.
. Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sri. K. Anirudhan
Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Proof affidavit in lieu of position
Ext. A1 - The welcome letter of RMP Infotec Private Limited
Ext. A2 - The letter of RMP Infotec Private Limited dated, 16.04.2007
Ext. A3 - The copy of the bill of VRL LOGOSTICS LTD., dated, 05.09.2007
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
