BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 25/06/2010

Date of Order : 30/09/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

C.C. No. 359/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

The complainant approached the opposite party to purchase a laptop containing 320 GB memory. The opposite party forwarded a quotation for the same for Rs. 32,200/- The complainant purchased a laptop for Rs. 32,000/- on 27-03-2010. On verification, the complainant understood that the laptop had only 250 GB hard disk memory. But the opposite party served a retail invoice of Rs. 32,000/- for 320 GB had disk. On the same day, the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the laptop with a 320 GB memory hard disk laptop. The opposite party assured that they would replace the laptop within one month and permitted the complainant to use 250 GB hard disk laptop till availing 320 GB memory hard disk laptop. After the assured period, the opposite party not having complied with the request, the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite party. The notice was returned unclaimed. The complainant is entitled to get the laptop as per the quotation issued by the opposite party. Thus, the complainant is before us for the following reliefs :

1. To direct the opposite party to replace the laptop.

2. To direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with 12% interest towards compensation for frustration and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

3. Rs. 250/- towards costs of the legal notice and other expenses.

2. Version of the opposite party :

The manufacturer of the lap top is a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant has purchased the disputed laptop after verification and detailed inspection. The opposite party could not change the configuration of the product, since the same is installed by the manufacturer. The complainant was well aware that the product by name Satellite Pro-L 510 D 401A has hard disc capacity of 250 GB memory. The price of 320 GB memory is higher than 250 GB memory computer. Due to a typographical error in the quotation 250 GB was mentioned as 320 GB. Based on the quotation, the opposite party happened to issue the bill. The opposite party never assured to replace the laptop. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

4. The points that emanated for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the laptop as per the quotation issued by the opposite party?

2. Compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, he is entitled to get a laptop as per the specifications in Ext. A1 quotation dated 26-03-2010 issued by the opposite party. However, the opposite party maintains that the memory of the computer as mentioned in Ext. A1 quotation and Ext. A2 bill is a typographical error and the price of the laptop mentioned in Ext. A1 is much higher than the one delivered to the complainant.

6. During evidence, the opposite party challenged the genuineness of Ext. A1 quotation and Ext. A2 bill. However subsequently, the complainant produced the originals of the same in this Forum. The specification of the laptop in Ext. A1 quotation is as follows :

“ TOSHIBA D 401 A

Intel Core 2 duo processor/2 GB DDR3 RAM/320 GB hard disk/DVD Writer/14.6” inch/webcam/Bluetooth/Wi-Fi/Dos/512 MB Graphics/bag.

Rs. 32,200/-.”

The specification of laptop in Ext. A2 retail invoice is similar to that of Ext. A1` quotation. Though the opposite party contended that there was typographical error in Exts. A1 and A2 as 320 GB instead of 250 GB, but nothing is on record to substantiate the above contentions of the opposite party. The opposite party having accepted the amounts as per Exts. A1 and A2 is contractually liable to deliver a laptop as per the specifications in Exts. A1 and A2 on which they failed. The above conduct of the opposite party amounts not only to deficiency in service on their part but also unfair trade practice. In the above circumstances, we unhesitatingly hold that the complainant is entitled to get a laptop as per the specifications in Exts. A1 and A2.

7. Point No. ii. :- Since, the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely compensation and costs are not called for.

8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that, the opposite party shall deliver a brand new laptop as per Exts. A1 and A2 to the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the disputed laptop to the opposite party simultaneously. Ordered accordingly.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of September 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========