Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
24th day of February 2023
CC 26/22 filed on 24/01/22
Complainant : Sudheer C.F., S/o Fakeerjan,
“Chenothuparambil House”. Kolazhy, Thrissur.
(By Adv. Viswanathan K.V., Thrissur)
Opposite Party : Aarjay Associates, Melka Tower,
Cherumparambath Road, Kadavanthra,
Kochi – 682 020. Rep. by Managing Director,
Anup Abraham T. Joseph.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant who is statedly a worker in the field of animation, in December 2018, bought a laptop from the opposite party. But on an elapse of two years, the full HD display of the laptop went faulty and the complainant in September 2021 statedly purchased a new display from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.13,000/-. When the complainant reportedly started using the new display, it was found that the same was also defective. Upon informing the matter, the opposite party instructed the complainant to get in touch with the manufacturer. The manufacturer when contacted by the complainant, agreed to despatch a new display to the opposite party, but when the complainant approached the opposite party to collect the new display sent by the manufacturer, the opposite party allegedly pleaded ignorance of any such information from the manufacturer. The complainant alleges failure on the part of the opposite party to replace the defective display.
The complainant also claims to have consequently been constrained to hire a display for a rent of Rs.12,000/- towards accomplishing his work of animation. The complainant alleges sale of defective goods and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The lawyer notice issued to the opposite party,statedly evoked no result. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay him compensation apart from other reliefs of costs, refund of sums paid etc.
2) NOTICE :
Commission duly issued notice to the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to enter appearance or to file their written version before the Commission, in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect. Hence proceedings against the opposite party were set ex-parte.
3) Evidence :
The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Ext. A1to A5, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The proceedings against the opposite party being set ex-parte, no documents produced on their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts :
The Commission had very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is the Tax Invoice No.32QAFSPJ8603BIZO dtd. 14/09/21, issued by the opposite party, towards the sale of MSI Display for a cost of Rs.13,000/-. Ext. A2 is the declarationNo. INF/08/2021 dtd.10/08/21 issued by an establishment namely M/s. Infusory Future Tech Labs Pvt. Ltd., in respect of their having rented out a monitor for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. Ext. A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice. Ext. A4 & A5 are respectively the Postal Receipt and acknowledgement card.
5) Points to be deliberated :
(i) Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the allegation
that he levelled against the opposite party ? If yes :-
(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite party ?
(iii) Whetherthe complainant is entitled to toreceive any
compensation from the opposite party ? If so its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
The crux of the complaint is that the opposite party sold a defective display to the complainant vide Ext. A1 Invoice. It is also the complainant’s allegation that consequent to the misdeeds of the opposite party, he was forced to hire a display paying a rent of Rs.12,000/- as evidenced by Ext. A2 declaration. A close scrutiny of Ext. A1 Invoice unveils the fact that the display in question was purchased from the opposite party by a private limited establishment namely Infusory Future Tech Labs Pvt. Ltd., Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam and not by the complainant. It is more alarming to learn that the same establishment namely Infusory Future Tech Labs Pvt. Ltd., Kaduthuruthy, Kottayam had made Ext. A2 declaration to the effect that they had rented out a monitor to the complainant at a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-, which in turn stakes the very credibility of Ext. A2 document.
It is a matter beyond doubt that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party as per Ext. A1 Invoice whereby the complainant lacks locus standi to file this complaint before the Commission and the complainant has also miserably failed to prove any grievance arising out of the alleged misdeeds of the opposite party. The complainant failed to prove the allegations that he levelled against the opposite party.
Needless to mention the other points detailed above warrant no consideration of the Commission. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 24th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 Tax Invoice No.32QAFSPJ8603BIZO dtd. 14/09/21, issued by the
opposite party, towards the sale of MSI Display for a cost of
Rs.13,000/-.
Ext. A2 declaration No. INF/08/2021 dtd.10/08/21 issued by an establishment
namely M/s. Infusory Future Tech Labs Pvt. Ltd., in respect of their
having rented out a monitor for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-.
Ext. A3 copy of the lawyer notice.
Ext. A4 & A5 respectively the Postal Receipts and acknowledgement card.
Opposite Party’sExhibits :
Nil
Id/- Member
