Tamil Nadu

Vellore

CC/09/24

Thiru. V. Kaliya Perumal S/o K. Venkatesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, M/s. P & P Systems, - Opp.Party(s)

T. Kalaiselvan

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                                                               Filed On: 16.07.2009

                                                                                                                   Dispoed On:29.04.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:        THIRU. P. RAMALINGAM, B.A., B.L.,                             :  PRESIDENT               

   THIRU. S. SIVALINGOM, M.A.M.Com, M.Ed., M,Phil.,                                                    

                                           M.L.M., M.B.A., B.G.L.,              :  MEMBER- I

 

CC. 24 / 2009

WEDNESDAY, THE DAY OF 29^th APRIL - 2015

                             

Thiru. V. Kaliya Perumal

S/o. K. Venkatesan,

No. 6, M.G.R. Nagar,

Thorapadi,

Vellore -632 002.                                                                                                     ...  Complainant

                            - Vs –

 

1. The Proprietor,

    M/s. P&P Systems,

   14, Officers Line,

    Vellore 632 001.

    

2. The Managing  / Authorised Persion

    M/s.Accel Frontline Limited (Accel Computers),

    Murugesan Naiayakar  Complex, 1 Floor,

    No. 132, Greams Road,

    Chennai 600 006.                                                                                            …Opposite parties  

 

This petition came up for final hearing before us on 10.03.2015 in the presence of Thiru.T. KalaiSelvan, Counsel for the complainant and Thiru D.P.Paul Sudesh, Counsel for the Opposite Party - 1 and Opposite Party–2 appeared  In – Persion and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. P. Ramalingam, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

1.         The complainant purchased a Pen Drive with 4 GB capacity branded as ‘Kingston’ from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.415/-.   The complainant was set to use it, found to his shock that the said product was defective and not usable.  Immediately the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, with the product and explained him of the defect and its un-usability.  The 1^st opposite party after verifying the product and checking it thoroughly agreed that the said product sold to the complainant is found to be defective.  The complainant .asked for replacement of the defective product with a new one, the 1^st opposite party was reluctant to replace the same and stating that he only sells the product but the liability to replace the defective product lies with the 2^nd opposite party who is the service provider of the said product and that the complainant may approach the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 20.03.2009 to both the opposite parties by registered post whose receipt were duly acknowledged by both the opposite parties on 24.03.2009.  The 1^st opposite party neither bothered to comply with the notice nor replied, but the 2^nd opposite party, who is the service provider of the said product vide  his reply through his lawyer dated 24.04.2009 instead of initiating action for replacement of the defective product, shed  away his responsibilities on fictitious  grounds stating that he has no agreement with the 1^st opposite party about after sales service etc., thereby evidently admitting his deficiency towards the consumer for the after sale services which he is liable.  The act of the opposite parties has caused untold misery and mental agony to the complainant.  It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000-00 (Rupees One Lakh only)  as damages for mental agony, inconveniences, loss and hardship due to gross deficiency and unfair, illegal, dishonest and fraudulent service rendered by them along with the product cost of Rs.415,00 paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  Directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000-00 towards the cost of this proceedings.

The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the 1^st opposite party are as follows:-

2.         The opposite party denies and repudiates all such averments in the complaint save such as those which are expressly admitted.  There is no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and on this short ground itself, this complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs of the opposite party.  On the own showing of the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint will reveal. That the complaint had filed the above complaint as one arising out of defective not useable and deficiency in service of the opposite party, same can’t be entertained in law.  The complaint has to legitimate right in claiming against us without handover the product for service to the opposite parties.  The complainant cannot claim relief without visiting our office and replacements are not door delivered.  Unless the product is inspected and found to be fault replacement cannot be done.  The complaint ought to have approached us if he found any fault in the pen drive for repair or replacement under warranty.  Instead being fully aware of the warranty stipulations and that we are not the authorized personnel to render service the complainant opted out of to just allege deficiency of service against us.  The said complaint not produced or filed original pen drive packing of the product along with the complaint before the Hon’ble Forum.  It is therefore prayed that this forum may pleased to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs of the opposite party  no. 1.

The brief  averments in the Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party  are as follows;

3.         The 2^nd Opposite party herein is represented by Mr. L. Sivaprakasam, Engineer, in the above stated Chennai address who is well aware of the facts of this case and prudent enough to swear before this Hon’ble Forum.  That Accel Frontline  Services is one of a Global Service Provider for Kingston and we can be made a party to a case only if the product is handed over to us for service or for replacements.  That admittedly the complainant has issued a notice dated 20.03.2009 where he had stated in para 1 that he was directed to visit us for replacement.  The complainant ought us have approached us if he found any fault in the pen drive for repair or replacement under warranty.  Instead being fully aware of the warranty stipulations and that we are the authorized personnel to under service the complainant opted out to just allege deficiency of service against us.  The complainant cannot claim relief without visiting our office and replacements are not door delivered.  Unless the product is inspected and found to be faulty replacements cannot be done.  The complainant has not stated about visiting our service center even though he had knowledge of the same.  We are not responsible for acts committed without our knowledge .  Without visiting our office we cannot be held liable for any claims made in this complaint as no deficiency can arise without our services being used by the complainant.  We do not have an office here at vellore and that we will have to travel to vellore for every hearing . We will lose valuable time  and work force  if this case is allowed to proceed with us as parties which is purely abuse of law by the complainant by filling cases against all and sundry without having any locus standi to do the same against the party being summoned.  Therefore this Forum may be pleased to directing the complainant to withdraw the complaint and dismissing the complaint filed against the 2^nd opposite party with suitable punitive damages against the complainant for unnecessarily drawing us into litigation.

4.        Ex.A1 to Ex.A7  were marked on the side of the complainant,  and No documents filed on the side of  Opposite Party - 1, Written Version filed by the Opposite parties-              1 &2  Proof affidavit filed on the side of complainant and opposite parties – 1 & 2.  

5.         Now the points for consideration are:

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

            b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?

 

6. Point. No. (a)        On  Perusal of the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant, the averments in the written version filed by the Opposite Parties, the Evidence and the documents filed on the side of both the parties,  it is very clear that the complainant purchased a Pendrive for a sum of Rs.415/- from the Opposite Party No. 1.  It is no doubt that opposite Party No. 2 is the authorized service provider for the said Pendrive.  It is not in dispute that there is a fault in the Pendrive purchased from the Opposite Party No. 1

 

7.         As contended by the Opposite parties, the complainant has approached the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects in the Pendrive only after the expiry of the warranty period .  Though it is happened as stated above, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects.  Moreover being a service provider it is the duty of the Opposite Party No. 2 to rectify the defects in the Pendrive.  But the Opposite Parties have failed to perform their duties in a proper manner.  Considering  the facts and circumstances stated above it is clearly established that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for  the relief sought for in the complaint.

 

8. Point. No. (b)       In the result the complaint  is allowed by directing the Opposite Parties to replace the Pendrive or to return back the purchase amount of Rs.415/- to the complainant by taking back the Pendrive from the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

The amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the data of default to till the date of payment.

Dictated directly by the President to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th April’ 2015.

    Sd/-                                                                                                                                Sd/-

MEMBER –I                                                                                                               PRESIDENT

List of Complainant Documents Filed :

 

ExA1. Dated: 26.02.2009     -   The Original Cash invoice Bill No.999

 

ExA2.               -                    -   The Original  Packing of the Product

 

ExA3.    -          -                    -   The  defective product ‘Pen drive’

 

ExA4. Dated: 20.03.2009     –   Original Office Copy of the Lawyer’s  Notice issued by

                                                   the Complainant to both the opposite parties.

 

 

ExA5. Dated: 24.03.2009      -   Xerox Copy of the Postal acknowledgement card signed

                                                   by the 1st  Opposite Party

 

ExA6. Dated: 24.03.2009     -    Xerox Copy of the Postal acknowledgment card signed

                                                   by the 2^nd Opposite Party

 

ExA7. Dated: 24.04.2009  –       Xerox Copy of the reply  notice of the 2^nd opposite party

 

 

 

List of Opposite Parties – 1 & 2 Documents:               -  Nil -

 

 

 

 

Sd/-                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                     PRESIDENT