Kerala

Trissur

CC/16/257

Mejeeb.V.M - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sphere Network Solutions,M.J.Complex - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
AYYANTHOLE
THRISSUR-3
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/257
( Date of Filing : 05 May 2016 )
 
1. Mejeeb.V.M
Valiyakath House,Gandhiji nagar,P.O.Pullazhi,Olarikkara
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sphere Network Solutions,M.J.Complex
Olarikara,Thrissur
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. C.T.Sabu PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sreeja.S MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Adv.A.D.Benny, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 30 Nov 2021
Final Order / Judgement

O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

          The complainant purchased a Dell 22 inch LED S 2240L Monitor from the 1st opposite party on 25/05/13 vide invoice No.2013-14/028 for an amount of Rs.8,930.25/-. It has made believed that the same is of superior quality having 3 years warranty. Certain dots were appeared in monitor and same has been increased at a level, by which the same cannot be used at all. This complaint regarding the same were not attended by the opposite parties and so caused a lawyer notice dtd. 03/04/16. Since the same yielded no result, this compliant filed.

 

 

          2) On receiving complaint notice was issued to opposite parties. Evenafter accepting the notice the 1st opposite party neither appeared before the Commission nor filed any version hence set ex-parte.  The 2nd opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed version. The contents of the version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows : The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant purchased a Dell 22 inch monitor on 25th May 2013 from the dealer, Sphere Network Solutions (Opposite Party No.1) having Serial No.#CN01MVD1641802B300VT by paying an amount of Rs.8,930.25. The above details are evident from invoice produced by the complainant. It is submitted that the said product was having 3 years warranty from the date of purchase. After purchasing the said monitor on 25th May 2013 the complainant has never contacted 2nd opposite party for registering any complaint. The 2nd opposite party has sold products having substandard quality is also denied. It is pertinent to mention that the 2nd opposite party has never received any legal notice from the complainant. The 2nd opposite party has checked the product history and was unable to locate any records of any complainant interaction based on the serial No.#CN01MVD164180B300VT and complainant name. It is therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service by 2nd opposite party as the complainant has not registered any service calls / complaint. The 2nd opposite party is liable to rectify any issue raised by the complainant during the said warranty period i.e. between 25/05/2013 to 24/05/2016. However, it is submitted that the complainant has never registered any complaint with the 2nd opposite party till date. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief and prayed for dismissal.

 

          3) The points for consideration are

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

                       parties or not ?

                   b) Reliefs and costs ?

 

          4) When the case was posted for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint and the documents produced are marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of Retail Invoice dtd. 25/05/2013; Ext. P2 series is the copy of Important Dell Details; Ext. P3 is the copy of Lawyer Notice dtd. 03/04/2016 and Ext. P4 is the A/D card. An Expert Commissioner was appointed and his report was marked as Ext. C1. From the side of opposite parties no documents were produced.

 

          5) Points :

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a monitor manufactured by 2nd opposite party from 1st opposite party. Ext. P1 proves the same and 2nd opposite party admits it. Therefore the purchase of the product stands proved.

 

          2) The crux of the case is that certain black dots are appeared in the monitor and steady increase in the same turned the monitor useless. The 2nd opposite party defend the same stating that no complaint were preferred by the complainant with the 2nd opposite party. It is the admitted case of the 2nd opposite party that the product sold through 1st opposite party. Ext. P3 is sufficient to prove proper complaint raised by the consumer with the dealer with regard to the product manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. A genuine consumer will prudently approach the dealer to cure the defect of the product and the respective dealer is bound to attend the same and also direct him to adhere with the proper recourse to redress the complainant. Moreover the 2nd opposite party is also not ready to attend the defect of the product, rather they defend this complaint. Hence an expert has been appointed as Commissioner and Ext. C1 report filed. Ext. C1 report categorically describes the defect of the product and the cause of the same. The product is also reported to be of low quality. Hence we are inclined to find that there is apparent defect in the goods which is to be answered by the 2nd opposite party manufacturer. Moreover, stand of the 1st opposite party is also depreciated since they are duty bound to attend the genuine complaints of the consumers. Hence we find that there is culpable deficiency in service from the 1st & 2nd opposite parties. Since the product is defective and of low quality, 2nd opposite party is directed to pay the price of the product back to the complainant with compensation and 1st opposite party is also liable to compensate the inconvenience and mental agony cause to the complaint.

 

          3) Considering the evidence as a whole and in the light of above discussion we find that the complainant established a cogent case before this Commission and thus we allow this complaint.

 

          In the result, complaint is allowed and hereby direct the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.8,930.25/- (Rupees Eight thousand nine hundred and thirty and twenty five paise only) as value of the product and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 1st opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). All the amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing in which the respective sum shall carry an interest 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.

 

 

 

 

                               

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2021.

 

  Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

Sreeja S                                                                                   C.T. Sabu

Member                                                                                    President

                                       

                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 copy of Retail Invoice dtd. 25/05/2013

Ext. P2 series copy of Important Dell Details

Ext. P3 copy of Lawyer Notice dtd. 03/04/2016

Ext. P4 A/D card.

 

Ext. C1 Expert Commissioner’s Report.

 

          Id/-

Member

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. C.T.Sabu]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sreeja.S]
MEMBER
 

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.