IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2010. Present: Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President. Adv. Ravi Susha, Member. R. Vijayakumar, Member C.C.NO.133/2007 KOSHY THOMAS, SHEEBA NIVAS, CHEMMAKKADU P.O, PERINADU, KOLLAM. [M.P. SUGATHAN, ADV., KOLLAM] .. COMPLAINANT V/S 1. THE MANAGER-CUM-OWNER, WINTECH SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM. 2. MR. SUSHIL GULATHI, PROGRAM CO-ORDINATOR, AWESOME, TWOSOME SCHEME, SAM SUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. 3. THEMANAGER, SBT MAINBRANCH, JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM. .. OPPOSITE PARTIES O R D E R R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed seeking direction to 2nd opp.party to give printer to the complainant as offered, and for getting compensation Rs. 25,000/- along with cost Rs.2,000/-. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. The complainant who is a Govt. employee purchased a 17@ Samsung LCD Monitor under the ‘Awesome Twosome Scheme’ II Phase on 28-3-06 from I opp.party who is the authorized dealer of II opp.party. He had made the full payment cash Rs.14,985./- as per bill No.3224. The Serial No. of the Monitor is HA17HHBL303181 (Claim ID 10560). On the same day itself he has made ‘on line’ registration to the II opp.party and taken a DD for an amount of Rs.999/- for that purpose from 3rd opp.party in favour of II opp.party and sent by registered post on the same day itself. After receiving DD II opp.party sent a message to the complainant through E-mail on 14-6-06. Since the offered printer was not supplied even after this announced period of 90 days, the complainant contacted I and II opp.parties. The I opp.party helped much to the complainant for solving the problem. It is informed by II opp.party that the said DD was not taken in the correct address as they directed. But the complainant strongly believe that it was taken in the correct address. It is clear from the counter foil issued from the III opp.party. Actually II opp.party received the DD sent by complainant in time. The complainant is not responsible for the non-payment of cash covered by the DD. So II opp.party is liable to compensate the financial loss and other sufferings met by the complainant. Due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the part of II opp.party, the complainant had suffered a lot and hence the complaint. Opp.party I and III filed separate version. II opp.party remained absent. Hence set Exparte. The I opp.party has prayed in their version that they may be deleted from the party array. He is not a necessary party in the complainant. There is no deficiency in service from the part of I opp.party. As per contract, conditions are to be performed between customer and II opp.party. In this case I opp.party has done all helps to the complainant to get the printer. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of I opp.party. III opp.party filed version stating that he is not a necessary party in this case. The complainant had availed a draft from the bank in favour of Samsung Electronics Ltd., New Delhi. It is left to the party to present the draft in time before SBT Delhi branch for encashment. III opp.party is not known whether the draft was taken in correct address or not. From the petitions nothing is clear on what ground the bank refused to make payment of draft amount. If the complainant is legally eligible to get back the amount the bank has no hesitation to disburse it. The prayer against opp.parties is not enforceable. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. Exts.P1 to P4 marked. Opp.parties 1 and 3 has no oral or documentary evidence. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party? 2. Compensation and cost. Points I and II Admittedly the complaint had purchased the Samsung Monitor under the Awesome Twosome Scheme. It was also admitted that the complainant had taken DD for an amount of Rs.999/- for getting printer as offered in the scheme. The printer was not supplied even after the announced period of 90 days. The complainant has stated in his testimony that the scheme was offered by II opp.party. The I opp.party has given every assistance for getting the printer. He has further stated that there is no deficiency in service from the part of I opp.party and II opp.party is liable to supply the printer. The complainant has alleged that II and III opp.parties committed deficiency in service. While cross-examination for opp.party 3 the learned counsel for opp.party 3 put the question that what was the reason for non encashment of DD? PW1 answered that the Area Manager informed him that it was because of the defect in DD and non inclustion of OP company LTD”. In re-examination he has stated that he did not know whether the DD was encashed or not. Opp.party2 or 3 had not given the money back to the complainant. III opp.party has stated in their version itself that they have not known whether the draft was taken in correct address or not. The complainant has stated in his affidavit that Ext.P4 the counterfoil which was issued by the III opp.party will prove the correctness of the address. The address shown in Ext.P4 is the correct address. Opp.party3 is responsible to verify the address in the main leaf and in the counterfoil, even though some mistakes were happened by the parties. In our view, the III opp.party is liable only if the bank had refused for clearing DD to the proper party. Otherwise they were only liable to keep the amount in III opp.party’s institution and to pay on demand. The complainant is not sure that the DD was presented by the II opp.party, and the address in the Draft is correct. The complainant has stated in the complainant that it was informed by the II opp.party that the said DD was not taken in the correct address as they directed. The document was produced by the complainant to prove that intimation. Ext.P3 E-mail is the acknowledgement of receipt of documents sent by the complainant to the II opp.party. “It is stated in Ext.P3 that “the despatch of printers for the II phase of the scheme will start immediately after the verification process is completed.” If any defect found by the II opp.party he is liable to intimate the defects to the complainant and to give an opportunity to rectify the defects. They are liable to sent back the defective DD to the complainant. But they were negligent in performing their bounden duty. This lapse is an unfair trade practice. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service in the part of opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the II opp.party to supply printer to the complainant as offered in the scheme. The II opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant as compensation of financial loss and mental agony sustained by him and to pay cost Rs.1,000/-. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2010. INDEX List of witnesses for the complainant PW1- Koshy Thomas List of documents for the complainant Ext.P1-Bill dated 28-3-06 Ext.P2-Postal Receipt Ext.P3-Reply on E-Mail dt 8-3-04. Ext.P4-Counterfoil for DD from opp.party3. | 
