BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 88/2005 Filed on 11..03..2005 <br /> Dated: 16..06..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Hilary Albert, M/s. Digital Computer's Service, Flat No. 5, Parameswaran Pillai Bhavan, Near Archana, Aradhana Theatre, Kollam – 1.<br /> (By Adv. S.Suresh Kumar)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Stanley, Proprietor, Bins Communication, 3rd Floor, Marva Arcade, Machingal Lane, M.G.Road, Thrissur – 680 001.<br /> <br /> 2.The Branch Manager, Bins Communications, Sree Padmam, East Nada, Palkulangara, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 14..12..2005 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2008, the Forum on 16..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER :<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant who is running a Video Editing Unit, for his livelihood, had purchased a video editing card of Canopus DV Storm II from the opposite parties on 24..04..2003 for a total amount of Rs. 57,000/- for which the opposite parties had assured a warranty of 3 years and replacement in case of any defective functions. Though the complainant used the said card as per the manufacturer's specification, it became non-functioning on 24..07..2004. It was informed to the opposite parties and as per the instruction of the opposite parties the complainant sent the card to the 1st opposite party by courier on 26..07..2004. But the opposite parties never cared to replace the cards or repair the same even after repeated demands. Hence this complaint for refund of the cost of the video editing card alongwith compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2.Opposite parties remain exparte.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P3 on his part.<br /> <br /> 4.The issues that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?<br /> <br /> 5. Points (i) & (ii): The complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case. Complainant as PW1 has deposed that the opposite parties have repaired the video identity card after the filing of the complaint before this Forum and hence he has limited his claim to Rs. 40,000/-. We perused the records on file. Ext.P1 is the gate pass dated 23..04..2003 issued in the name of the complainant. The serial No.of the product, description, quantity etc are mentioned in Ext.P1. But nowhere the price of the said card is seen mentioned. Moreover the complainant has not produced any record to show the cost of the said card. Though the cost of the card and mode of payment are mentioned in Ext.P3 Advocate notice, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Moreover, the complainant alleges that he was assured a warranty for 3 years which is also not supported by any document. The allegation that the video editing card became defective and was entrusted to the opposite parties for repair and it was returned repaired only after the filing of the complaint has not been proved by the complainant. There is no evidence with regard to the cost of the equipment and for the sufferings and losses suffered as alleged by the complainant due to the act of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 6. Under these circumstances, we have to hold that the complaint is not supported by records and evidence for holding that the opposite parties were deficient in their service. Even if the opposite parties are absent, the complainant will have to establish his case set out in the complaint by reliable and convincing evidence. Hence we have no other alternative than to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OP.No.88/2005<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness:<br /> PW1 : Hilari Albert<br /> II. Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : Photocopy of Gate pass No.930 dated 23..04..2003 issued to the complainant.<br /> <br /> P2 : Photocopy of daily delivery statement page No.179184 dated 27..07..2004.<br /> P3 : Photocopy of Advocate notice dated 29..09..2004 issued to the opposite parties. <br /> III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />