cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 26th day of November 2012
Filed on : 21/01/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 46/12
Between
Mathai Mathew, : Complainant
Mangalathil house, (party-in-person)
Thulappilli P.O.,
Moolakkayam, Pathanamthitta.
And
1. Thoshiba India (Pvt) Ltd., : Opposite parties
3rd floor, Building No. 10.B, ( 1st O.P. by Adv. Sreekala
D.L.F. Cyber City, Phase-2, Krishnadas, R&P Parters
Gurughan -122 002, Ernakulam)
Rep. by Ranjeeth Jha,
2. IT NET INFOCOM Pvt. Ltd.,
Behind Air India Building,
M.G. Road, Cochin-682 016,
Ravipuram.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The facts of the complaint in short are the following:
Complainant purchased a lap top for Rs. 34,000/- from the 2nd opposite party shop. Surprisingly the machine was taken to opposite party’s authorized service centre for some complaint in a short time. This continued for several times within warranty period. Thus the equipment was brought to the service centre as many as seven times on different counts within a short span of seven months since the purchase Complainant points out that he suffered much due to this contract and he is fed up with the system. Therefore he is in demand of refund of the price and such other incidental reliefs.
2. No version was filed on behalf of opposite parties.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts. A1 to A6 marked on his behalf. Complainant was heard.
4. The following points require settlement
(i) Whether the equipment suffers from manufacturing defect?
(ii) What are the reliefs, allowable?
5. The complainant pertains to a laptop of which 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and 2nd opposite party is the dealer. The gist of his complaint is that the electronic gadget was in and out of the service centre for seven times for one reason or other. He has produced documents in his support of the aforesaid allegation, even though they are four in number only. The date of purchase according to Ext. A1 is 28-06-2011. The service Reports will show that all repairs were done within the warranty period which is obvious from those documents. The complainant suffered loss and damage on several counts due to improper functioning of the electronic machine. In that view we do think that complainant deserves the reliefs sought in this complaint.
He has sought the relief of the refund of the price of the goods compensation and cost. Since the complainant was forced to take the instrument to the service centre frequently, quite naturally he lost his confidence in the brand. Hence one cannot say demand for refund is unjustified. In the same way the complainant has obviously suffered mental agony due to the frequent repairs to the machine. In addition, he deserves cost of litigation.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed as follows:
i. 1st opposite party shall refund Rs. 32,679.74 along with
interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment.
ii. 1st opposite party shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation
for mental agony.
iii. 1st opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the
proceedings in this Forum.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November 2012
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of retail invoice
A2 : Copy of service report
A3 : Copy of service report
A4 : Copy of service report
A5 : Copy of service report
A6 : Copy of G-mail
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
