By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member

The gist of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant has purchased Intel P4 2.4, 128 MB DDR,40 GB HDD,52X ASOZ CDR, Logitech (Mouse,Keyboard) 15” Samsung, for a price of Rs.24,250/- and UPS 650 VA for Rs.2,400/- on 17.6.2004 from the opposite parties.

2. There was no power supply at the time of installing the system by the opposite parties at the shop of complainant at Goodallur. Complainant called a technician when the supply was resumed and found that the system was not working properly, because the main parts of the system were not original. The complainant informed the opposite parties about the defects of the system, but the opposite parties not responded. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.30,000/- from SBT for venturing a self employment project and it was failed due to the non functioning of the system.

3. The complainant has employed two helpers and he has paid 2 months salary for them in vain. The complainant also suffered other mental and financial loss due to the non-functioning of computer system. So the complainant prays for the refund of the price of computer Rs.26,650/- and other compensation of Rs.50,000/-

4. The opposite parties made appearance and filed separate versions. The 1^st opposite party contented that he and the complainant's wife are colleagues in government service. The complainant's wife told the 1^st opposite party about her husband's intention to buy a computer system for his shop. The 1^st opposite party advised the complainant's wife to contact 3^rd opposite party who was dealing in sale and service of computer systems. Third opposite party is the relative of 1^st opposite party. Other than this the 1^st opposite party has no connection with

the dealing regarding the computer. In his version, 2^nd opposite party also contented that he has no role at all in the computer dealing. He is the colleague of complainant's wife in Taluk Office, S. Bathery. She canvassed business for her husband's mobile shop from the office. The 2^nd opposite party suggested to some colleagues that further service would be difficult if they purchase mobile from Gudallur. So the complainant's wife was very irritated on this and the complainant has caught him in litigation. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite party admit that they have sold

the computer system to the complainant. At the time of sale and installation, the system had no defect at all. But it was operated by some unexperienced hands and that caused damages to the system. The complainant did not inform the opposite party about the defects of the system. Otherwise the opposite party could have repaired it. The computer is sold in 2004. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties only introduced the complainant to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. But they are unnecessarily impleaded and the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are impleaded in 06 only. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are ready to repair the computer even now itself. So, the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties pray for an order dismissing the complaint.

5. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. OP1 was examined as OPW1 Ext. B1 to B7 were marked on the side of OPW1. 2^nd opposite party was examined as OPW2. The opposite parties No.3 and 4 have filed version and did not adduce any evidence. The complainant has taken out a commission for reporting the defects of the computer and the commission report is marked as Ext. C1 One summoned document by the Forum is marked as Ext. X1.

6. The points to be decided are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief ?

7. Point No.1 The sale of the computer system by the 3rd and 4^th opposite parties is admitted by them. The price is shown in Ext.A1, which is the order form signed by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties admit that the complainant was introduced to them by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The 1^st complainant admits that 3^rd opposite party is his Brother- in -Low. The complainant states in lawyer notice that the 1^st opposite party represented as the proprietor of 4^th opposite party and 2^rd opposite party as the sales executive of 4^th opposite party. Ext. X1, the summoned document from BSNL shows that the phone number shown in Ext.A1 order form given by 3^rd opposite party and 4^th opposite party belong to 1^st opposite party. So, the version of 1^st opposite party that he has no connection in the dealings is found not correct. In this aspect the complaint is believable. Regarding the defects of the computer system Ext. C1, the commission report shows that Hard disk drive, OSD and a UPS are not working and without replacing these parts, the system can not be operated. And Ext. C1 also points out that the replacing of these parts will cost Rs.3,300 /- and it is not worth to spend this amount on an out dated system (more than three years old) The 3^rd opposite party and 4^th opposite party in their version have stated that the complainant has not informed them about the defects of the system. But the complainant has sent lawyer notice Ext. A2 series on 23.8.2004 to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are found related to the 1^st opposite party and naturally they are aware of the defects of the system. In Ext. B1, the 3^rd opposite party assure to repair the system. But there is no statement by 3^rd opposite party or any other evidence that the opposite parties have made any attempt to repair the TV. So the point No.1 is found against the opposite parties No.1,3, and 4. There is no evidence to prove that the 2^nd opposite party has any relation with the dealing.

8. Point No.2: In the version filed by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties 3^rd opposite party admits that he is the proprietor of 4^th opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the price of the computer from 1^st and 3^rd opposite party. The Complainant has to return the computer to the Opposite Party. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has taken loan to buy the computer or that he has employed 2 helpers for the shop. So, complainant is not entitled for compensation as prayed for.

Hence, the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs.26,650/-(Twenty six thousand six hundred and fifty only) and take back the computer within 30 days of this order. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are directed to pay an interest at the rate of 10% on the above said amount from the date of the order till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27^th September, 2008.