Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/178/2023

The Proprietor, M.S.Technologies - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Dharmalingam, M.D., D/o T.Pitchayappa & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s Fedel Law Consultance V. Kirubalani

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

F.A. No.178/2023

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.104/2022 dated:23.12.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Thiruvarur)

DATED THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2023

The Proprietor,

M.S. Technologies,

No.7, Rangaswamy Complex,

G.S.T. Road,

Site Indian Bank,

Chengalpattu – 603 001.               .. Appellant / 1^st Opposite party. 

-Versus-

1. Dr. Dharmalingam,

D/o. T. Pitchayappa,

Medical Practitioner,

Department of Bio-Chemistry,

Government Medical College Hospital,

Thiruvarur.                                    .. 1^st Respondent / Complainant.

2. The Manager,

Skypro Technologies Private Limited,

No.23/C1, E.V.R. Road,

Nearby Vekkaliamman Marriage Hall,

Puthur Naal Road,

Trichy.                                 .. 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party. 

Counsel for the Appellant / 1^st Opposite party  : M/s. Fedel Law 

                                                                     Consultancy

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent / Complainant  : M/s. Arivazhagan

2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party                : Notice served

                The 1^st respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Thiruvarur dt. 23.12.2022 in C.C. No.104/2022.

        This petition came before us for hearing finally, today and upon hearing the arguments of the Appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

Thiru. R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                      

        1.  The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is working as a Medical Expert in the Thiruvarur Government Medical College.   On 03.02.2021, he purchased a laptop namely; ‘HP Note Book-15-db 1059 au’ from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.36,000/-.   The said laptop has 1 year warranty.   The 2^nd opposite party is the authorised service centre of the 1^st opposite party.    During January 2022, one of the button in the laptop’s keyboard was not working. Hence, on 09.02.2022, the complainant has given the said laptop to the 2^nd opposite party for rectification of the said defects.   The 2^nd opposite party after checking the laptop told the complainant that there is a problem in the keyboard circuit and the Top cover and key board should be replaced.    Further the 2^nd opposite party told that since the warranty had expired, the complainant should bear the replacement cost.  Hence, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.7,192.90/- on 09.02.2022 to the 2^nd opposite party for the service of his laptop.   On 14.02.2022, the 2^nd opposite party has handed over the serviced laptop but has not returned the damaged top cover and keyboard to the complainant as demanded by him.    The act of the 2^nd opposite party in collecting a huge amount but without replacing the Top cover and Keyboard caused great mental agony.    Hence on 15.02.2023, the complainant has sent a email to return the damaged / defective Top cover and keyboard for which, on 16.02.2023, the 2^nd opposite party sent a reply.  On 23.02.2022, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but the opposite parties received the legal notice but did not sent any reply.   Hence, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

3.     Though notice has been served on the opposite parties 1 & 2, they have not chosen to appear before the District Commission and hence, the opposite parties were set exparte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to handover the defective laptop within 6 weeks to the complainant and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and further, the opposite parties 1  & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Welfare Fund Corpus-8229-00-123-AD Head of Accounts and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the complainant.  The above amounts shall be payable within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order failing which, the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

5.     Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant / 1^st opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Further, he only is a retailer and the 1^st respondent / complainant has not made any contact or communication with regard to the defects in the laptop to the appellant / 1^st opposite party.  The mail sent by the complainant to the 2^nd respondent is sent to  the st opposite party sought this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

6. When the case had come up before this Commission on 31.07.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant / 1^st opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the 1^st opposite party to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission.  The said cost was also paid today and since the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with, the appeal is allowed by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Thiruvarur in C.C. No.104/2022 dt.23.12.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Commission, Thiruvarur for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

The District Commission is directed to issue notice to all the parties for their appearance and on such appearance, directed to proceed with the case and dispose the same within three months according to law and on merits.

The amount deposited by the appellant / 1^st opposite party shall remain in the custody of this Commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                 R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

Index :  Yes/ No

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/July/2023.