The Centre Head, M/s.Reliance Web World V/S K.V.Sujith, Advocate
K.V.Sujith, Advocate filed a consumer case on 15 Oct 2008 against The Centre Head, M/s.Reliance Web World in the Palakkad Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/52 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Palakkad
CC/08/52
K.V.Sujith, Advocate - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Centre Head, M/s.Reliance Web World - Opp.Party(s)
15 Oct 2008
ORDER
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad, Kerala Pin:678001 Tel : 0491-2505782 consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/52
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member C.C.No.52/2008 K.V.Sujith, Advocate, West Yakkara, Palakkad 678001 - Complainant (By Adv.Sivadas) Vs The Centre Head, M/s.Reliancae Web World, HPO Road, Palakkad 678001 - Opposite party O R D E R By Smt.Seena.H, President The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant has purchased a CDMA Data Modem MG880 bearing number 9387332832 as per the advertisement for using internet connection and usage in his lap top computer paying a sum of Rs.3,180/- on 8/10/2007. But after installing the complainant could not use the same since the device was not supporting in his lap top and also because of the slow speed of only 28.8 kbps as against 115 kbps offered by opposite party. The complainant has lodged a complaint regarding this to opposite party and also went to the HP service centre to check out for any of the configuration issue, but could not find any mistake on his HP Compaq lap top regarding the hardware or software part for not connecting to the net card. Even though the complainant has approached the opposite party and explained the complaint and expressed his willingness to return the device, opposite party has not cared to redress his grievance. But the opposite party was very proper in issuing periodical bills. According to the complainant he has not used the device except the usage done by the Reliance Service people for checking the problem in connectivity and speed. So the complainant is not liable to pay any bill amount. But he has paid one bill amounted to Rs.247/- on 20/11/2007 as per the advice of opposite party's Centre Head. Registered lawyer notice dt.21/01/2008 was issued to the opposite party and the same was served. Opposite party has not cared to reply for the same. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service. Hence the complainant prays before this forum for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,180/-, being the value of the device with 12% interest from 8/10/2007 till realisation of the amount, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation, Rs.500/- for cost of notice and cost of proceedings. Notice was served on the opposite party. Opposite party has not appeared before this forum. Hence opposite party was set exparte. The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A8 documents. The issue to be decided is 1)Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party 2)If so, what is the relief and costs? Issue 1 & 2: The definite case of the complainant is that he has purchased a CDMA Data Modem on 8/10/2007 for a sum of Rs.3,180/- from the opposite party. Since installation, device was not functioning as it is not supporting his lap top. Engineers with the HP service centre make it clear that problem was not with his lap top. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of these facts except the proof affidavit filed. Ext.A1 to A8 is the periodical bills issued by the opposite party to complainant. Complainant has not paid any of the bill amount, the reason being the charges for the unused device as stated in the proof affidavit. Complainant has stated that he has paid one bill amounted to Rs.247/- on 20/11/2007. No receipt for the said amount seen produced. Complainant has issued a registered lawyer notice dtd.21/01/2008 to opposite party stating the facts. Lawyer notice, acknowledgement card and postal receipt marked as Ext.A6 series. It is seen that even after the receipt of notice, opposite party has not cared to reply for the same. On receipt of the notice of the complaint also opposite party has neglected to appear before the forum. The attitude of the opposite party will lead to the inference that what is stated in the proof affidavit of complainant is true. Since the opposite party has not appeared before this forum and filed any version, the evidence rendered by the complainant stands unchallenged. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. In the result, complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,180/- being the value of the device, and Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- cost. The order to be complied within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of order till realisation. Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of October, 2008 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K Member Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 Bill No.350684395385 dtd.25/10/2007 issued by opposite party to complainant Ext.A2 Copy of Bill No.350766845118 dt.25/11/07 issued by opposite party to complainant Ext.A3 - Copy of Bill No.350851131363 dt.25/12/07 issued by opposite party to complainant Ext.A4 - Copy of Bill No.350931686604 dt.25/01/08 issued by opposite party to complainant Ext.A5 Copy of letter dtd.05/01/2008 sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.A6 (Series) Copy of lawyer notice, acknowledgement card and postal receipt Ext.A7 Lawyer notice dtd.07/02/08 sent by opposite party to complainant Ext.A8 Copy of letter sent to the Advocate of the opposite party by complainant Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Nil Costs (allowed) Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.