By: Smt. Mini Mathew, Member
The case of the complainant in brief is that she is a school teacher working in V H M H S S, Morayur from 2004 onwards. The 1st opposite party issued a public notice stating that the teachers are bound to purchase Laptops as part of their job. The new syllabus needs computer literacy and the same should be implimented in the near future and the Govt. had taken necessary steps to implement various schemes. The 1st opposite party made the complainant to believe that they can supply laptop computers at a subsidized rate and they would monitor the service. They informed that they appointed the second opposite party as their agent and they would supply laptop computers at subsidized rate and would provide all services at free of cost. The complainant and other teachers believed their representation. They offered that the Laptop supplied by them is having a warranty for 3 years and the laptop is having good quality.
Complainant paid Rs.1500/- (One thousand and five hundred rupees only) with the 1st opposite party as advance amount on 10/2/11 and the 2nd opposite party issued the receipt for the same. The 1st opposite party issued a order Booking Form to the complainant dated 10/2/11. Complainant booked one Chirage Laptop 14D 22 with the opposite parties. After that on 11/5/2011 opposite party No.2 supplied the Laptop to the complainant after receiving the balance amount of Rs.17770/- ( (Seventeen thousand seven hundred and seventy rupees only) and the same was paid to first opposite party and the 2nd opposite party who was present there issued receipt for the same.
After the delivery of the Laptop it was seen that the same was not functioning properly. The key board was not working properly, the cam attached to the laptop was not working, the hard disk was not working properly, the battery charge was not supporting as promised. The matter was intimated to the 1st opposite party and as directed by them the Laptop was given for servicing with the 1st opposite party. After several months the Laptop was returned back but even after repair it was not working properly. After receiving an amount of Rs.19270/- from the complainant towards sale consideration they supplied a defective laptop to the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. She could not use the laptop because of its defects. All the defects were noticed during the warranty period. The second opposite party is not attending the phone calls of the complainant.
Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice from this Forum opposite party No.1 entered appearance and filed his version. According to him the above said transactions were under a Govt. scheme called ICT scheme and opposite party No.1 is only the co-ordinator of the said scheme for an on behalf of the Govt. The purchase of the Laptop, selection of brand, payment and after sale services were exclusively between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. So opposite party No.1 contented that he is not in any way connected to the said dealings and he had nothing to do with the grievances of the complainant. They have only arranged a common platform for the short listed companies and the teachers to supply laptop for cheaper price without accepting any remuneration. Opposite party No.1 has no responsibility regarding the financial dealings. As per the terms and conditions of the sale the 2nd opposite party alone is responsible for the after sale service. All these aspects were clearly mentioned in Circular No.ITS/2011/01/1402 (1) dated 19/1/2011 issued by Executive Director, nd opposite party to get it corrected. Opposite party No.1 has no direct involvement regarding all those aspects.
Opposite party No.1 contented that the “The co – ordinator IT @ school is an unnecessary party in these proceedings and if any defects are occurred to the laptop it is the bounden responsibility of the 2nd opposite party to cure the defects.
Regd notice and notice through speed post were served to opposite party No.2. But opposite party No.2 did not turn up. Hence he was called absent and was set exparte.
The main points that arise for consideration are as follows.
(1) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service?
(2) If so relief and cost
In order to prove the case of the complainant, she filed her proof affidavit and the documents she produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the receipt No.511 dated 10/2/2001 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant after receiving an advance amount of Rs.1500/- (One thousand five hundred rupees only) Ext. A2 is the order booking form dated 10/2/11 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A3 is the Tax invoice dated 14/5/2011 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant after receiving an amount of Rs.17770/- (Seventeen thousand seven hundred and seventy rupees only).
Opposite party No.1 filed his counter affidavit and no documents were produced on his side.
From the available evidence placed by the complainant before this Forum we find that complainant purchased one Chirag Laptop 14D 22 from opposite party No.2 after paying an amount of Rs.19270/- (Nineteen thousand two hundred and seventy rupees only) on 14/5/11. Complainant submits that at the time of purchase the opposite parties offered 3 years warranty to the Laptop. Within a short period itself the Laptop became defective and complainant entrusted the same to opposite party No.1 for repair. She tried her level best to contact opposite party No.2 also. But opposite party No.2 did not even care to attend her telephone calls.
After repeated demands opposite party No.1 returned the laptop to the complainant alleged to have been repaired. But even after repair it did not function.
Complainant is a school teacher purchased the Laptop with an intention to use the same for her teaching purpose with much expectations. As per the averements in the complaint and proof affidavit , it is seen that the laptop became defective and the said defect was not cured by the opposite parties inspite of the complainant's repeated requests. It is the duty of the opposite parties to act as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. They did not care to do so.
On a careful analyzing of the evidence o on records this Forum came to the conclusion that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant
In the result , the complaint is allowed and we order that all the opposite parties shall refund the sum of Rs.19270/- to the complainant with interest 10% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment along with Rs.10000/- as compensation towards mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant and Rs.5000/- as cost with one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After paying the amount Opposite party No.1 can get back the Laptop from the complainant
Dated this 30th day of March, 2017.
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1 : Receipt No.511 dated 10/2/2001 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant after receiving an advance amount of Rs.1500/- (One thousand five hundred rupees only)
Ext.A2 : Order booking form dated 10/2/11 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
Ext A3 : Tax invoice dated 14/5/2011 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant after receiving an amount of Rs.17770/-
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
A.A.VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
