BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  MANGALORE                      

Dated this the 04^th March 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI                   : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.128/2016

(Admitted on 02.04.2016)

Mr. Faisal,

S/o P.A. Abdul Hameed,

Kallangai,

Post Mogral Puttur,

Kasaragod District.

                                                        ……… Complainant

(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SSK)                                                                                                         

VERSUS

The Manager,

Reliance Retail Ltd,

SF 16.27A, 2^nd floor,

City Centre mall, K.S.Rao Road,

Hampankatta, Mangalore 575001.

                                                                             …. Opposite Party

        (Opposite Party In person)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI

1.  This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

          The complainant has purchased one Hard Disk Drive of Seagate brand 1 TB, Ref; EAN#: 763649053058 from the Opposite Party on 26.07.2014 on payment of Rs. 4,999/ as per cash memo dated 26.7.2014.  That the Opposite Party is the authorized retail dealer as well as service centre of the Seagate brand products.  The Hard Disk Drive is used for the purpose of storage of the datas and it is meant for keeping the software for long time and to use it as and when necessary by research scholars, professional students, lawyers, doctors, business man and other officials in offices.  The complainant herein is the professional lawyer, hence as per the assurance of the Opposite Party that the Seagate hard disk is the global leader in data storage solutions and it preserves the most critical memories and business data. The complainant after purchasing the Hard Disc Drive so called HDD used for his profession to transfer and preserve important legal matters and personal files along with his personal wedding, and other memories to the device as and when required to store it and to reproduce whenever necessary.  After four months, the complainant while using the said device, he found that some of datas are missing or erased from the hard disc drive and which could not be traced back with all best efforts put by the complainant on 13.11.2014 and handed over the defective device to the Opposite Party.  That device was got replaced by the Opposite Party on 03.12.2014.

          Again within four months, the device had the same complaint and problem causing huge loss to the complainant by way of losing the important matters and datas of legal file which leads to unbearable hardship and injury to the complainant in his legal profession and entrusted the Hard Disc Drive to Opposite Party on 28.4.2015 to rectification and manufacturing defect.  This time Opposite Party after examining the defect of the device, promised the complainant to redeem the purchase value of the device to any other set after corresponding with the manufacturer in due course.  The complainant visited several times to the Opposite Party but he did not keep his promise by telling one or other reasons and to prolong the commitment he made of to redeem the purchase value with any other product.  Thereafter complainant issued legal notice on 30.6.2015 but Opposite Party not replied nor refund the price of device.  Hence the above complaint is filed under  section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986(here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Fora to  the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the Hard Disc Drive device Rs.4,999/ to the complainant along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II. Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD and filed version. The Opposite Party submits that when the complainant as approached the Opposite Party on 13.11.2014, either to rectify or to replace Opposite Party replaced the device on 03.12.2014 since the product covered under brand warranty.  However, complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer/ brand Seagate or its authorised service center. The Opposite Party submitted that the complainant again approached on 28.4.2015 with this Opposite Party on the same reason and allegation that the replaced new device is also got damaged and is not functioning.  This Opposite Party submits that the complainant with an ulterior motive and with a determination mind, taking the 1^st time advantage of replacement, harassed and threatened this Opposite Party for getting it replacement or to refund the cost of HDD Rs.4,999/ which he purchased after utilizing the product almost 10 months. The Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant with a pre determined mind set up and even though the device replaced with new one as per his requirement on 03.12.2014, as a routine practice, again approached this Opposite Party for 2^nd time and demanding for refund the cost of device and later on inspite of phone calls never responded for further discussion. Opposite Party submits that there was no deficiency of service from its end and that once again reiterate that even at this juncture (during brand warranty) with a view to settle amicable out of forum, being 3^rd time, this Opposite Party is willing to refund only the cost of HDD Seagate Rs.4,999/ was allegedly purchased by the complainant on 26.07.2014 and replaced on 03.12.2014 to the complainant and submits that the complainant to accept for take back the purchased cost of HDD device of Rs.4,999/ and close the case amicably and allow for amicably settlement.

III.     In support of the complaint Mr. Faisal, (CW1) the complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the documents same has got marked as Ex C1 to C6.  On behalf of the Opposite Parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil.

IV.     In view of the above said facts, the points for arise for our consideration in the case are:

1. Whether this Complainant proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

        We have considered the oral arguments submitted by the complainant and also considered the materials that was placed before the Fora and answered the points are as follows:

                              Point No. (i) : Affirmative

                              Point No. (ii) : Affirmative

     Point No. (iv): As per the final order.

REASONS

V.   POINTS No. (i) to (iii): 

          In order to prove the case, complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex.C1 to C6 as listed in the annexure.  The above documents produced by the complainant clearly reveals that the complainant purchased Hard Disk Drive of segate brand for Rs.4,999/ and within short period the above said hard disk drive found defect is proved.

          Apart from the above, in Opposite Partie’s version, stated that complainant not impleaded the manufacturer in this case. Even though the complainant not impleaded manufacturer as party to the proceedings, the Opposite Party admitted in the version that is willing to refund the cost of HDD device Rs. 4,999/-.  Hence mere admission of the Opposite Party is sufficient to prove the case and it require no further proof.  The documentary evidence led in support of complainant case are convincing and credible.  Further we also noted that the Opposite Party is already replaced the device on 3.12.14 hence regarding compensation and cost of the litigation expenses does not arise.

          In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party shall refund the cost of the hard disc drive device of Rs.4,999/ and the Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

          In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order.

ORDER

                The complaint is allowed.  Opposite Party shall refund the cost of the Hard Disc Drive device of Rs.4,999/(Rupees Four thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) and  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

          In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount with in the stipulated time, the opposite party directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of legal notice till the date of payment         

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

        (Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by Member to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the                  4^th March 2017)

             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

      (LAVANYA M RAI)                    (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum          D.K. District Consumer Forum

             Mangalore                                       Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Faisal,

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: copy of the invoice dated 26.7.2014.

Ex.C2: Job Sheet dated 13.11.2014.

Ex.C3: Job sheet dated 28.4.2015.

Ex.C4: Copy of lawyer notice dated 30.6.2015.

Ex.C5: postal receipt dated 30.6.2015.

Ex.C6: postal card dated 01.07.2015.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Nil

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Nil

Dated: 04.03.2017                                    MEMBER