D.o.F:22/9/2014
D.o.O:31/03/2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.199/14
Dated this, the 31st day of March 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
M.V.Nigeesh.
Thekkumbad House, : Complainant
Po.Elambachi 671311
Techno City,
Opp. Indian Overseas Bank, Trikarpur Po : Opposite party
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Modem of I-Ball BATON company from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.2100/-. The period of warranty is 2 years within one year of its purchase the modem was not working . Then the complainant given the modem for repair to the opposite party and also handed over the bill and warranty card to the opposite party. After repairing the Modem the opposite party returned the same to the complainant after two weeks. But it was not working . Then the complainant again given it for repair to opposite party but the opposite party failed to return back the modem by repairing the same. According to complainant he is working as a statistical inspector in Economics and Statistical Department and for his work internet is an inevitable part and for doing his work he availed the service of internet café and he has to pay for that service. Moreover he has got an internet connection from BSNL and he has to pay Rs.620/- per month without using the internet. For the delay in repair of the modem the complainant suffered mentally and economically. Hence he filed this application for necessary relief.
Opposite party served notice and its managing partner filed version. In the version the opposite party denied all the allegations made against him by the complainant. Opposite party also denied the purchase of the Modem from the opposite party by the complainant. The opposite party submits that the opposite party purchased a modem from the 1 Ball distributor at Ernakulam for the complainant and the opposite party is only the middleman and he has not sold the modem to the complainant. According to the opposite party as per the warranty given to the complainant the company has to provide the service and he is not a necessary party to this complaint and there is no consumer relation between the complainant and the opposite party as per Consumer Protection Act.
Here the complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 marked. After filing of the version the opposite party neither appeared nor adduced any evidence. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to provide after sale services to the customers. Here the opposite party contended that he is an unnecessary party to the complaint and he is only the middleman. We cannot accept the contention of the opposite party since the Apex court decided in many cases that the consumer can approach the dealer and the dealer is also liable for the unfair trade practice and for deficiency in service. Here there is no contra evidence adduced by opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that denial of after sale service amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant herein suffered mentally and economically and he is entitled for the relief claimed.
Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2100/- the cost of the modem to the complainant and also pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. After complying the order this opposite party can recover the amount from the company as per legal means. The compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Ext.A1- purchase bill
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
