This C.C. is coming on before us on 15-7-2011 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Rajeswar Rao, Advocate for complainant; Sri.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2; complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had approached opposite party No.3 and purchased 17 inches LG computer system (Dour maits) vide its model No.XLZ-H2CZTPI and Sl.No.707NLRY000198 for Rs.25,000/- under receipt No.44, dt.3-8-2007. After two months from its purchase, it started giving problems in operating system. Immediately, the same was informed to opposite party No.3, thereby he expressed inability in giving service, but advised to approach opposite party No.2, immediately the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and its technician attended on the system and found that there is some problem in the main board processor and also the other problems, but he managed to function the same temporarily. Again one month thereafter the same problem arose and the complainant approached opposite party No.2, there its authorities harassed the complainant for a period of one month in not attending the PC to rectify the problem, lastly opposite party No.2 attended the system and rectified problem temporarily. Again after four months the problem was repeated and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested to rectify the problem permanently, otherwise replace the said system. The opposite party No.2 neither rectified the problem nor replaced the system and they did not give proper reply inspite of making many rounds to the service center. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant finally got issued a legal notice on 25-6-2010, demanding to rectify the problem permanently or to replace the system. Inspite of it, the opposite parties did not choose to come forward to replace the said system. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the 17 inches LG computer system (Dour Maits) its Model No.XLZ-H2CZTPU Sl.No.707NLRY000198 or to pay an amount Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of purchase till its realization, if they fail to replace the system and also direct to pay Rs.75,000/- towards loss of work, damages and causing mental agony.
2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint also filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5
Ex.A.1 - Cash bill (VAT Tax invoice) issued by Shiva Infotech,
Khammam vide bill No.44, for Rs.25,000/-.
Ex.A.2 - Three year warranty card issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A.3 - Warranty card issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A.4 - office copy of legal notice along with other courier receipts
Ex.A.5 - Returned unserved postal covers of opposite parties
No.2 and 3 along with postal receipts.
3. On receipt of the notice, opposite party No.1 & 2, appeared through their counsel, Sri.M.Srinivasa Reddy, but not filed counter.
4. Notice of opposite party No.3 returned for want of correct address, though a number of adjournments given to furnish correct address of opposite party No.3, at last counsel for complainant filed a memo stating that they do not know about the opposite party No.3, and that opposite party No.3 is not necessary party to the proceedings. As such the case against opposite party No.3 is dismissed as not pressed.
4. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To What relief?
Point No.1:-
In this case, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 and purchased 17 inches LG computer system (Dour maits) vide its model No.XLZ-H2CZTPI and Sl.No.707NLRY000198 for Rs.25,000/- under receipt No.44, dt.3-8-2007. At the time of purchase, the opposite parties issued warranty for a period of three years. But after two months, the computer started mal- functioning and the same was informed by the complainant to the opposite party No.3, they expressed their inability and advised to approach opposite party No.2 to rectify the said problem. Immediately the complainant approached opposite parties No.2 and its technician attended the repair of the system and found that there is some problem in the main board processor and also other problems, he repaired to function the same temporarily. Again the problem in the computer has arisen, but the opposite party No.2 attended the system and rectified problem temporarily. Again after four months the problem was repeated and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested to rectify the problem permanently, otherwise replace the said system. The opposite party No.2 neither rectified the problem nor replace the system and they did not give proper reply inspite of made many rounds to the service center. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant finally got issued a legal notice on 25-6-2010, demanding to rectify the problem permanently or to replace the system. Inspite of it, the opposite parties did not choose to come forward to replace the said system. Hence, the complainant approached the forum for redressal.
From the documents available on record, we observed that the complainant purchased a new computer, which gave troubles within months of its purchase the complainant became dissatisfied. And also one of the personnel of the opposite parties No.2 attended on the system and found that there is problem in the main board processor and he managed to function the same temporarily, again the problem was repeated. For that the complainant had taken all the steps, even after receiving legal notice and also receiving notices from this forum, the opposite parties kept quite is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Further it is observed that the manufacturing company is not justified in protracting litigation merely it has money power. And also observed that the complainant purchased a new computer would not be satisfied if it is defective. That the defect is major or minor but the consumer looses satisfaction of having a new computer. The loss of satisfaction could be much more in a case when a person buys the machine with his hard earned money.
The same was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Suchdeva Industries Vs Deep Aggarwal & Others I (2010) CPJ 120 (NC).
Even on receipt of notice, the opposite parties failed to respond either for replacing of new computer or payment of cost of the computer i.e. Rs.25,000/- is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to replace 17 inches LG computer system (Dour maits) vide its model No.XLZ-H2CZTPI, which was purchased by the complainant under receipt No.44, dt.3-8-2007, within one month from the date of the order or refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase (i.e. from 3-8-2007) till the date of realization and also awarded Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards damages and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The claim against opposite party No.3 is dismissed as not pressed by the complainant.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 3rd day of August, 2011.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:- None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Cash bill (VAT Tax invoice) issued by Shiva Infotech,
Khammam vide bill No.44, for Rs.25,000/-.
Ex.A.2 - Three year warranty card issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A.3 - Warranty card issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A.4 - office copy of legal notice along with other courier receipts
Ex.A.5 - Returned unserved postal covers of opposite parties
No.2 and 3 along with postal receipts.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil -
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM
