BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 30th day of March, 2009
C.C.No. 130/08
Between:
N. Ashok Kumar, S/o.N.Shakar Rao,
78/59, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool-518 003. … Complainant
Versus
- M/s. V.L.Computer, Sales and Servicing Center, Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr.Raju, D.No.40/139, Shop No.1, Somisetty Complex, Opp. Raj Theatre, Kurnool 518-002.
- M/s. Lorven Systems, Sales and servicing Center, Represented by its Partner
Mr.Raju,D.No.40/139, Shop No.1, Somisetty Complex, Opp. Raj Theatare, Kurnool-518 002. ..Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.M.Indra Vijaya Rao, Advocate, for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.130/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking direction on the opposite parties to return the price of lap top i.e, Rs.33,000/-, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony , cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that complainant purchased a HP 500 series lap top of Pentium 512 M.B and 80 GB, Hard Disk Drive , DVD writer , 14.1 wide screen, 10/100 L.A.N card configuration in August, 2007 for Rs.33,000/- from opposite party No. 1, who changed over its name and style as opposite party No. 2. On the same day the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- towards down payment and for remaining balance of Rs.14,370/- the opposite party arranged personal loan from Bajaj Auto Finance . Thereafter the complainant came to know that the said lap top was fixed with 60 GB capacity only instead of 80 GB as mentioned in invoice bearing No. 151. On approaching the opposite party about the said fact, the opposite party promised to changed the hard disk drive of 60 G.B with 80 GB and received Rs.4,500/- additionally . But opposite party did not changed the hard disk drive and on several approaches the opposite party postponed the said promise repeatedly. At last on 09-07-2008 the complainant got issued legal notice dated 09-07-2008 demanding the opposite party to change 60 GB hard disk drive with 80 GB hard disk drive, the opposite parties inspite of receiving did not reply and hence the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant’s side relied on the following documents viz., (1) carbon copy of tax invoice and (2) office copy of legal notice dated nil, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No. 1 filed written version and opposite party No. 2 adopted the written version of opposite party No. 1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that the complainant purchased a lap top for Rs.33,000/- but denies that the said lap top was fixed with 60 GB instead of 80 GB . It further submits that they delivered the lap top as per the configuration given in the invoice and the lap top is repudiated and popular company product and the complainant received the same with a sealed piece and opposite party No.1 opened the seal in the presence of complainant after checking the configuration and performance of HP lap top the complainant took delivery of said lap top. The complainant is an experience litigant and he got replaced the 80 GB hard disk drive to him with an old and out dated 60 GB hard disk drive and made a false claim with opposite party No. 1 demanding for replacement of 80 GB hard disk drive and lastly alleges there is no truth in the statement of the complainant and no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties did not file any documents but relied sworn affidavit of opposite party No. 1 and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?
8. It is a simple case of the complainant that he purchased a H.P lap top from opposite party No. 1 for Rs.33,000/- of Pentium 512 MB & 80 G.B, Hard Disk Drive , DVD writer, 14.1 wide screen , 10/100 LAN Card configuration vide Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 is the tax – invoice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated nil for Rs.33,000/-. The complainant alleges that as per Ex.A1 the said HP lap top should be fixed with 80 GB but after the purchase the complainant came to know that the said lap top was fixed with 60 GB only. On the other side the opposite parties submits that the lap top purchased by the complainant is reputed company product, and a sealed piece, the complainant after checked the configuration given in
Ex.A1 and performance of the lap top only the complainant took delivery of the said lap top.
9. The complainant in support of his case relied on Ex.A1 and A2. The Ex.A1 is the tax invoice as to the purchase of lap top for Rs.33,000/- . The Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice issued by complainants counsel to opposite parties along with its courier receipts and acknowledgement - same grievances such as installing 60 G.B Hard disk drive instead of 80 GB Hard disk drive and calls on the opposite parties to hand over 80 GB Hard disk.
10. The complainant except filling Ex.A1 & A2 did not made any endeavor before the for a to prove that the lap top purchased by the complainant was having 60 GB Hard disk drive only instead of 80 GB Hard
disk drive. Hence in the absence any such material on record to substantiate the plea taken by the complainant , it cannot be said that the opposite party fixed 60 GB Hard disk only to the complainants lap top .
11. To sum up , there is no cogent material on record to show that opposite party committed deficiency in service by installing 60 GB instead of 80 GB and the complainant utterly failed to prove his case and hence the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the relief sought and the complaint is dismissed.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 30th day of March , 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Carbon copy of tax invoice.
Ex.A2. Office copy of the legal notice dated nil along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on
