BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 62/2015 Filed on 18.02.2015

ORDER DATED: 29.06.2018

Complainant:

Sunil. S, Plavila Veedu, Chempakamangalam, Korani P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 104.

                             (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Sony Centre, Sycamore Complex, 1^st Floor, 11/1953, Plamoodu, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)

2. Madona Sales & Service, Sony Authorized Service Centre, T.C 3/121 (10 & 11), Kesavadasapuram, Opp: M.G. College, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.

(By Adv. J.S. Sabu for 3^rd O.P)

This case having been heard on 17.04.2018, the Forum on 29.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Case of the complainant is as follows:  On 27.03.2014 complainant purchased a laptop with model SVF 154135NB priced Rs. 32,290/- made by the 3^rd opposite party from the 1^st opposite party who is the dealer of the 3^rd opposite party.  He purchased the same for the educational purpose of his son.  But within days of its purchase it became slow and developed problems of overheating.  He got it rectified with the 2^nd opposite party.  Within 7 months of its purchase it became defective for more than 8 times.  He was not able to use the laptop for the purpose for which it was purchased.  So he approached this Forum claiming refund of the purchase price. 

Notice was served to all opposite parties but only 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were set exparte. 

1^st opposite party’s version goes as follows: The averments in the complaint are admitted to the extent that the complainant had, on 27.03.2014, vide invoice number 18-284277 purchased a laptop of Sony make.  The complainant, after being satisfied with the specification and price, had selected the product of the 3^rd opposite party.  It is submitted that the complainant was satisfied with the working condition of the said product and had purchased the same.  The complainant had purchased the base model of the laptop.  The averment that the complainant had contacted this opposite party alleging complaints about the product is not denied.  It is submitted that since this opposite party is only a dealer and does not undertake any repairing/servicing of the products, this opposite party had directed the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service station of the 3^rd opposite party.  This opposite party does not know what had happened between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party and the averments in that regard are not admitted.  The allegation that the product showed trouble within a few days after its repair is denied.  The product is still in working condition.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party.  This opposite party is not competent to replace the product.  No specific allegations were leveled against this opposite party.  The complainant has no cause of action for instituting this complaint against this opposite party.  He had filed this complaint with malafide intention to enrich himself unjustly by abuse of process of this Forum.   

Issues:

1. Whether the allegation against the opposite party is proved?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit.  1^st opposite party who is the only contesting party has no oral evidence.  No evidence is tendered by the complainant.  After filing affidavit he prayed time for filing commission application to prove the defect on the laptop as envisaged in Consumer Protection Act.  Thereafter he evaded from the scene.  So no evidence is before this Forum to adjudicate this complaint which is only to be dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of June 2018.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                        R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb