COMPLAINT NO.111/2009

(Admitted on 18.5.2009)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President

2. Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member

3. Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member

BETWEEN:

Mr.Suresh Kumar,

Assistant Director,

Informal Rationing Area

Food & Civil Supplies,

D.C.Office Building,

Mangalore. …. COMPLAINANT

(Complainant: Appeared in person)



VERSUS



1) Miss Aishwarya.J,

M.P.Redemption Cell,

C/o Solution Integrate

Marketing Services

Private Ltd., Fist Floor A-2,

Phase I, Okhala Industrial Area,

New Delhi-110 020.



2) Shri Nagendra,

M/s.Suprabatha Computer,

203, Suprabatha,

Bejai Kapikad,

Mangalore-575 004. ….OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1: Exparte)

(Advocate for Opposite Party No.2: Smt.Suma R.Nayak)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

The allegations of the Complainant is that, on 1.10.2007 he had purchased a Lap Top Compaq Presario C702TU from M/s Suprabhata Computers i.e. Opposite Party No.2 vide Bill No.935 for Rs.26,510/-. While handing over the computer to the Complainant, the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant to register his name and apply for a scheme announced by the Opposite Party No.1 for supply of one Web Camera and Headset by paying Rs.350/-. Accordingly, the Complainant drawn a D.D. for Rs.350/- dated 16.10.2007 in the name of Opposite Party No.1. But the Complainant not received any web camera and head set as explained by the dealer. Thereafter the Complainant wrote several letters and also sent a fax despite of that the Opposite Parties not sent the Web Camera and headset as offered by them. It is stated that the Opposite Parties neither sent the Web Camera nor refunded the money of Rs.350/- paid by the Complainant till this date amounts to deficiency. Therefore, the Complainant filed the above Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) seeking direction from this Hon’ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.14,620/- towards compensation including the cost of the Web Camera and Headset.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 despite of serving notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date. Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 contended that the Complaint is not maintainable there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.2. The role of the Opposite Party No.2 is restricted to deliver H.P. Lap Top Computer to the Complainant.

Further stated that the scheme of providing the Web Camera and Headset is that of the Opposite Party No.1, the D.D. of Rs.350/- is handed over to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has no role to play in the entire transaction. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.



3. The points that arise for our consideration in this case are as follows:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?


(ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?


(iii) What order?



4. In support of the complaint, one Sri.Suresh Kumar (CW1) filed his affidavit and reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex.C1 to C5 as listed in the annexure and answered the interrogatories served on him. One Mr.Nagendra Prabhu (RW1), Proprietor of the Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both the parties have produced written notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Points No.(ii) to (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. Points No.(i) to (iii):

In this case, the Complainant filed the earlier complaint bearing No.219/2008 before this Hon’ble Forum without making the Opposite Party No.2 who is the dealer of the H.P. Lap Top Computer as party to the proceedings. After considering the question of law the above complaint was closed with the observation that the Complainant shall file fresh complaint by making the dealer of the H.P. Computer is also necessary party to the proceedings vide its order dated: 29/11/2008.

Now the Complainant filed the above complaint by making the dealer also necessary party to the proceedings and version notice served to both the parties, Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel and contested the case. Whereas the Opposite Party No.1 who is the manufacturer of the H.P. Lap Top Computer despite of receiving notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1.

The allegation of the Complainant is that he has purchased H.P. Lap Top Computer from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.26,510/- on 1.10.2007. While purchasing the above said computer the Opposite Party No.2 who is a dealer informed the Complainant to register his name and apply for a scheme announced by the Opposite Party No.1 for supply of one Web Camera and Headset by paying Rs.350/-. Accordingly, Complainant drawn a D.D. for Rs.350/- dated: 16.10.2007 in favour of Opposite Party No.1. The same has been received by the Opposite Party No.1 but not sent the Web Camera and Headset till this date nor refunded the amount. The Complainant wrote registered letters as well as fax dated: 12.3.2008, 16.4.2008 and 15.5.2008 as per Ex.C5 to C7, despite of receipt of the above letters the Opposite Party No.1 not complied the same. Hence he came up with this complaint.

We find that Opposite Party No.2 who is a dealer of the H.P. Lap Top Computer specifically admitted that the Complainant had purchased the above said computer and also stated that the Opposite Party No.1 introduced the scheme of providing the Web camera and head set for that the Complainant shall draw Rs.350/-. But the Opposite Party No.2 stated that the above scheme is introduced by the manufacturer who is the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is a dealer has no role to play in the entire transaction and contended that there is no deficiency.

The Complainant filed affidavit and produced document Ex.C1 to C7 and Opposite Party No.2 also led evidence. On perusal of the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence available on record, which is proved that the Complainant purchased a H.P. Lap Top Computer on 1.10.2007 by paying Rs.26,510/- from Opposite Party No.2 as per Ex C1. The Ex.C3 and C4 reveal that the Complainant registered his name and paid Rs.350/- by way of D.D. in favour of Opposite Party No.1. The Ex.C5 i.e the registered letter issued by the Complainant along with postal receipt reveal that the Complainant not received the Web Camera and Headset as offered by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 also filed affidavit by way of evidence stated that the Opposite Party No.1 introduced the scheme and offered to purchase of the Laptop Computer. By considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it is proved that the Opposite Party No.1 being a manufacturer and Opposite Party No.2 being a dealer of the above mentioned H.P. Lap Top Computer, in spite of offering the scheme and receiving the amount from the customer herein the Complainant failed to provide the articles i.e. Web Camera and Headset till this date. The Opposite Party No.2 being a dealer introduced the customer to the Opposite Party No.1 by selling their product and also introduced their offer/scheme to the customer herein the Complainant, having sold the computer to the Complainant equally responsible to see that the scheme introduced by the manufacturer shall be fulfilled and it should reach to the customer who has purchased the product through them. The manufacturer has no direct contact/dealing with the customers. Hence as a dealer the Opposite Party No.2 also has equal responsibility to see that the scheme introduced by the manufacturer should be fulfilled. But in the given case both the parties in spite of receiving the D.D. from the Complainant not bothered to send the articles i.e. Web Camera and Headset offered by them amounts to deficiency in service. In view of the above, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to deliver the Web Camera and Headset to the Complainant immediately and also pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the harassment and inconvenience. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. The compliance and payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.