HCL Infosystems Ltd., V/S Mr. Philip Abraham - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/334/2010

Mr. Philip Abraham - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL Infosystems Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

IP

30 Jun 2010

ORDER

IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/334/2010

Mr. Philip Abraham						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
HCL Infosystems Ltd., HCL Digicare (Marol Naka)						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

25/06/2010 Complainant / By Sri Opposite Party/ By Sri ORDER The complainant has filed memo stating that, he had taken the Laptop from the opposite party after repairs. The only grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had promised to deliver the Laptop within 4-5 weeks. Where as the same as given to him after repairs after 16 weeks. Admittedly, the Laptop has been purchased in the name of complainants sister-in-law Ms. Mary Stella. She is a proper person to file complaint and claim compensation. The present complainant has not produced power of attorney or letter of authority to act and deal and file complaint on behalf of Ms Mary Stella. Therefore, without any authorization the complaint filed is not maintainable. On this ground itself complaint deserves to be dismissed. However, there is no subsisting dispute between the parties because the complainant had already taken back laptop after its service. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

25/06/2010 Complainant / By Sri Opposite Party/ By Sri ORDER The complainant has filed memo stating that, he had taken the Laptop from the opposite party after repairs. The only grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had promised to deliver the Laptop within 4-5 weeks. Where as the same as given to him after repairs after 16 weeks. Admittedly, the Laptop has been purchased in the name of complainants sister-in-law Ms. Mary Stella. She is a proper person to file complaint and claim compensation. The present complainant has not produced power of attorney or letter of authority to act and deal and file complaint on behalf of Ms Mary Stella. Therefore, without any authorization the complaint filed is not maintainable. On this ground itself complaint deserves to be dismissed. However, there is no subsisting dispute between the parties because the complainant had already taken back laptop after its service. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT