THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No138 /2010
Monday , the 21st day of November, 2011
Petitioner : Susamma Ulahannan
Kalappurackal House,
Mavilangu Jn., Pallom P.O.,
Nattakom. reptd. by
Power of attorney holder
Zubin Cherian
Residing at Polakkal House,
Mavilagu Jn., Pallom ,
Nattakom.
(By Adv. Kuruvilla Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) Acer India (P) Ltd.,
Embassy Heights, 6th floor, No. 13,
Magrath Road,
(Next to Hosmat Hospital)
Bangalore – 560025.
(By Adv. D. Zaibo)
2) M/s. Focus Computers,
Building No. XIII/220,
A, B, C Kannampuram Bldg.,
M.C Road, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner, filed on 4..6..2010, is as follows.
Petitioner is a retired professor residing at Nattakom Village, Kottayam. First opposite party is the manufacturer of computers named ‘Acer’. Second opposite party is the dealer of the first opposite party. On 5..11..2009 petitioner purchased an Acer computer and its accessories from the second opposite party after paying an amount of Rs. 18,650/- as cash. In addition to above said amount second opposite party collected Rs. 400/- towards installation charge. Rs. 200/- as delivery charges and Rs. 500/- as charges for service contract. Petitioner installed the system for the purpose of communicating with her grand children, who were settled abroad. Soon
-2-
after the installation the system become faulty. Petitioner also noticed that the model supplied by second opposite party differs with the model stated in the bill. On several occasions ie. on 22..3..2010, 6..4..2010, 8..4..2010, 16..4..2010, 19..4..2010, 21..4..2010 and 14..5..2010 the system shown several defects. Petitioner reported the matter to the opposite party. Service persons of the opposite party attended service and now equipment is in the custody of first opposite party. According to the petitioner due to the frequent complaint petitioner is not able to use the system properly. Petitioner alleges that act of opposite party in supplying a defective computer amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite parties for refund of the cost of the computer with 12% interest. Petitioner claims refund of the amounts received by the first opposite party along with amounts charged for extension of warranty and service charges. Petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Notices were issued to opposite parties. First opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the first opposite party petitioner purchased the computer system for commercial purpose. So the petition is not maintainable.
The model of the system is model No. AP 1660.K. The extended warranty period is valid up to 5..10..2012. According to the opposite party petitioner did not produce any receipt or service contract. The allegation of the petitioner that model supplied is differs from the model as stated in the bill is not correct. First opposite party attended all calls made by the petitioner and serviced the machine to the full satisfaction of the petitioner. First opposite party rectified the SMPS problems and replaced the same. As per the warranty policy the first opposite party is only
-3-
responsible for the hardware services of the system. The petitioner installed unregistered and pirated software software in the system, contrary to the warranty terms. So, the alleged problem ware caused by installation of pirated system and illegal soft ware. The net work problems were caused due to the internet problem or infection of virus in system. The first opposite party inspected the machine and no problems observed. But the petitioner refused to accept the unit. According to the first opposite party there is no manufacturing defect or any other defects and system in need no replacement. First opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Second opposite party was ex-parte.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A14 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the newly purchased computer, manufactured by the first opposite party, become mal functioning within few days of its purchase. The bill showing the purchase is produce and the same is marked as Ext. A2. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that the date of purchase is on 5..11..2009 . On 22..3..2010 the computer become faulty and petitioner inform the same to the second opposite party. The fault on 22..3..2010 is evidenced from the customer calls slip issued by second opposite party. Customer calls slip, dtd: 22..3..2010, produced is marked as Ext. A6. Ext. A7 is the customer calls slips issued by second opposite party. Ext. A8 is the service report of the first opposite party dtd: 4..7..2010. Ext. A9 is the customer calls slip second opposite party Dtd: 16..4..2010. Ext. A10 is the service report of the first opposite party dtd: 19..4..2010. Ext. A11 is the service
-4-
report of the first opposite party dtd: 21..4..2010. Ext. A11 (a) , Ext. A12 and Ext. A13 are the service report of first opposite party. From Ext. A6 to A13 documents it can be seen that computer is mal functioning and it showed serious defects including no display. SMPS was defective and it was replaced speaker as well as the system is not powering on. Thus from Ext. A6 to A13 document it can be seen that within a short span of six months the computer turned faulty for eight times. Even after carrying out all the repairs by the both opposite parties system is not on proper working condition. One after another repair itself shows that there is an inherent manufacturing defect to the computer. As per Ext. A14 opposite party executed service contract agreement. As per the terms of the agreement opposite party has no right to claim any charges for the repair work and inspection. But from Ext. A6 document it can be seen that second opposite party collected Rs. 300/- on their visit. From the evidence adduced it can be seen that the model number shown in the bill and in the service report are entirely different . So, from that it can be inferred that the configuration of the system installed is not the actual model for which price was collected. Further more opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the model in the bill and the model supplied are one and same. Even though opposite party has a definite case that the system is damaged by the use of pirated software nothing is placed on record to prove the said contention. In our view act of the opposite party in supplying a defective computer amounts to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result opposite parties are ordered to refund Rs. 19,750/- to the petitioner being the cost of the computer and accessories. without saying what had happened caused much mental
-5-
sufferings and loss to the petitioner. So, as compensation opposite parties are ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner. Both opposite parties are jointly and severably liable to compensate the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of this order. If the order is not complied, as directed, petition is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount from the date of filing of petitioner till realization.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Power of Attorney. .
Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 5..11..2009
Ext. A3: Bill Dtd: 5..11..2009
Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 5..11..2009
Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 5..11..2009
Ext. A6: Customer calls slip Dtd: 22..3..2010
Ext. A7: Customer calls slip Dtd: 6..4..2010
Ext. A8: Service report Dtd: 4..7..2010
Ext. A9: Customer calls slip Dtd: 16..4..2010
Ext. A10: Service report Dtd: 19..4..2010
Ext. A11: Service report Dtd: 21..4..2010
Ext. A11(a) Service report Dtd: 21..4..2010
Ext. A12: Service report Dtd: 14..5..2010
Ext. A13: Service report Dtd: 15..5..2010
Ext. A14: Contract Agreement.
Document for the Opposite party
Ext. B1: Conditions of warranty.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
