Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/157/2022

G.S.Prabu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kaisen Info serve - Opp.Party(s)

J. Hemanth Kumar, G.S. Balamurugan OP2

19 May 2023

ORDER

                                                               Date of Complaint Filed:26.04.2022

                                                               Date of Reservation     :28.04.2023

                                                               Date of Order              :19.05.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                              : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.157/2022

FRIDAY,THE19^thDAY OF MAY 2023

G.S. Prabu,

S/o. Subramaniyan,

No.42/18, 9^th Street,

Jothi Nagar,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai – 600 019.                                                                                                              ..Complainant.

-Vs-

1.Kaizen Infoserv Pvt Ltd,

   Rep. by its Authorised Signatry,

   No.66, Guruvappa Street,

   Chintadripet,

   Chennai – 600 002.

 

   Head Office,

   330/1, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Main Road,

   Tamlar Layout,

   Bangalore-560071.

 

2.Omega Computronix,

   Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

   33C, Wallers Road,

   Mount Road, Opp. To Masjid,

   Chennai – 600 002.                                                                                                       .. Opposite Parties.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant     :M/s. J. Hemanth Kumar, N. Vivek,   

                                                                M. Murugesh       

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party  : Exparte on 27.07.2022

 

Counsel for 2^ndOpposite Party  : M/s. A. Prakash

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Counsel for the 2^ndOpposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

(i)     The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to provide a new PIH55Z Model Motherboard and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards providing defective motherboard to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony along with cost of the proceedings of this complaint.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant had purchased a Motherboard bearing No.KHZ55190810358, Serial No.PIH55Z on 03.05.2021 from the 2^nd Opposite Party which is manufactured by the 1^stOpposite Party. As per the confirmation of the Complainant’s computer engineer that the said motherboard was not functioning, as the warranty period exist for the motherboard on 04.03.2022 the Complainant approached the 1^stOpposite Party, the manufacturer and service agent of the motherboard had sought for 15 days time to replace the new PIH55Z Motherboard.

2.     On verification of the acknowledgement Number given by the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant came to know that he can receive the New PIH55Z Motherboard that was sent to the 1^st Opposite Party on 15.03.2022. When he approached the 1^st Opposite Party they had provided an used defective motherboard, having shocked and surprised he had asked for his motherboard or a new motherboard. But the 1^st Opposite Party said that as the production of particular model mother board has been stopped, hence only the old motherboard could be given and an old motherboard usedby someone / defective motherboard was given to him and cheated him.

3.     On compulsion he had received the old motherboard but after installing it into the Computer for testing, his computer engineer said that it was defective and it was not in position to use. Based on which he again went to the Opposite Party office in person and questioned about why he has been provided with a defective and unrectified motherboard, for which it was informed that the courier company delaying the delivery of motherboard because of which they had provided a motherboard temporarily and they had assured to provide a new motherboard in one or two days, inspite of the said assurance they had not raised a new job sheet.

4.     Further on 24.03.2022 they again sent a motherboard bearing serial No.ZR1826003654, when was checked by his Computer engineer the motherboard in a computer and tested it and he said that the one provided also a defective one and could not be used.  Hence, he again approached the 1^st Opposite Party for replacement for third time and the Opposite Party without any responsibility told that a pin number was missing on the particular motherboard and therefore they could not be exchange the motherboard under warranty, which caused him to suffer a heavy mental agony and distress. Hence the complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

5.     The 2^ndOpposite Party submitted that the Complainant’s statement about the purchase of mother board model number PIHS5Z, bearing serial number KHZ55190810358 on 03.05.2021, which has 1 year warranty is true. Further the Complainant approached them again in the month of March 2022 for claiming the warranty, they verified the warranty of the said mother board and confirmed that it is covered under the warranty, since the product purchased 10 months ago, so they had advised him to claim the warranty with the manufacturer and given the manufacturer service center address along with contact details. They are into the business of retail shop and they are no way connected to the warranty claiming process. They don't aware about the warranty claim process and they are not connected with the cause happened to the Complainant while claiming his warranty from the 1^st Opposite Party. They nowhere aware about the repeated visit of him to the 1^st Opposite Party for the same warranty claim process and they are not responsible and they could do anything in the warranty claim process. To his shock and surprise they received a notice about this issue and attempted to settle, meanwhile the petitioner stated them that already the 1^stOpposite Party refused to serve him under warranty and cheated him thrice. The 2^nd Opposite Party has taken many steps to sort out the issue, but all his efforts went vain, they don't have any authority to serve their customers in warranty process, hence they are not responsible for agony and problems caused to the petitioner. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III. The 1^st Opposite Party set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and was duly served to the 1^stOpposite Party. Despite the notice being served, the 1^st Opposite Party  failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the 1^stOpposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

IV.    The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-4. The 2^nd Opposite Party had submitted its proof affidavit and Written Arguments. No document was marked on their side.

V. Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed and to what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point Nos. 1 and 2:-

6.     On perusal of the records, the Complainant had purchased a Motherboard bearing No.KHZ55190810358, Serial No.PIH55Z on 03.05.2021  from the 2^nd Opposite Party, manufactured by the 1^stOpposite Party with one year warranty period. Having come to understand that the said motherboard was not functioning he had approached the 1^st Opposite Party. On 04.03.2022, the manufacturer and service agent, who had sought for 15 days time to replace the new PIH55Z Motherboard. On verification of the acknowledgement Number given by the 1^st Opposite Party he came to know that the motherboard was to be delivered on 15.03.2022, hence approached the 1^st Opposite Party, who had provided an used and a defective motherboard instead of a new one, which was found on installation and again he had approached the 1^st Opposite Party, who had in turn had informed that the motherboard of particular model was out of production and would provide a new one with a day or two. Inspite of the same for the third time he had provided a defective motherboard which could not used and thereby had caused a severe mental agony and monetary loss.

7.     The Contentions of the 2^nd Opposite Party are that they are not the manufacturer of the said motherboard and they are only a dealer, as they do not know the process of claiming replacement they had provided the address of the manufacturer to make a claim. They are in no way liable or responsible for the claim made by the Complainant.

8.     On discussion made above and on perusal of records, it is clear from Ex.A-1 GST Tax Invoice No. HO/CS/868/21-22 dated 03.05.2021, that the Invoice of the alleged motherboard was raised by the 2^nd Opposite Party in the name of one Mr.Musibath Raj, neither the said Mr.Musibath Raj is the Complainant nor he had authorised the present Complainant to file this complaint, hence the present complaint filed by a person other than who had purchased the subject product would itself is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further mere handing over the subject product to the 1^st Opposite Party for repair or replacement as well as the communications exchanged between the 1^st Opposite Party and the present Complainant, would not provide any legal authority to the present Complainant to file and maintain the complaint. Hence, the present Complainant is not at all a consumer. Therefore this Commission is of the considered view that the complaint filed by the present Complainant is apparently not maintainable and the same is dismissed. As discussed and decided that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant cannot attribute any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly Point No.1 and 2 are answered.

POINT NO 3:-

9.     As discussed and decided Point Nos. 1 and 2 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point No.3 is answered.

          In the result , the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 19^th of  May 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	03.05.2021	Copy of Receipt
Ex.A2	05.03.2022	Copy of Job Sheet
Ex.A3	04.04.2022	Copy of Refusal letter
Ex.A4	04.04.2022	Copy of announcement

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

•  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT