Date of Filing: 25/11/2011

        Date of Order: 19/01/2012

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  19^th DAY OF JANUARY 2012

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

C.C. NO.2135 OF 2011

Sri.A.Rajappa,

S/o.Late Agadurappa,

Aged About 50 years,

R/at: No.5, 3^rd Cross,

1^st Floor, Opp. Vishnu Vilas

Apartment, K.R. Layout,

J.P. Nagar 6^th Phase,

BANGALORE-560 078.

(Rep. by Sri.Kempanna, Advocate)                                         ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) Devaraj Infotech (P) Ltd.,

Ganesh Krupa, No.24/1,

Kavi Kalidasa Road, 1^st Main,

Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009.

Rep. by its Manager.

(Rep. by Sri.Vijaykumar.M, Advocate)

(2) M/s. Hewlett Packard India

Sales Private Limited,

Plot No. 9-11A & 35-37A,

Sector-V, Integrated, Industrical

Estate, Pantnagar (Sidcul),

Rudrapur, (Uttarakhand),

PIN-263153.

Rep. by its Manager.

(Rep. by Sri.Harsha & Co. Advocates)

(3) M/s. Hewlett Packard India

Sales Private Limited, No.24,

Salarpuria Arena, Hosur Main Road,

Adugodi, Bangalore-560030.

Rep. by its Manager.

(Rep. by Sri.Harsha & Co. Advocates)                              …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the computer with a defect less computer or to pay Rs.33,250/- its value and to pay Rs.1,25,000/-,  are necessary:-

The complainant purchased one Desktop Computer which is manufactured by opposite party No.2 from its dealer opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.33,250/- on 26.10.2008.  The said computer worked for some time properly but later it started giving trouble.  As per the direction of the opposite party No.1 it was given to its customer care i.e., opposite party No.3 which replaced the mother board and other components and repaired/serviced on 29.04.2010, 19.10.2010, it was replaced on 27.10.2010, motherboard was replaced again on 11.01.2011 and there was problems again and again.  Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties to replace the computer or refund the amount on 16.09.2011 to which the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 sought clarification on 23.09.2011 which was furnished to the opposite parties to which the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 replied on 04.10.2011 and after that opposite party No.1 replied on 11.10.2011.  There is inconsistency in their replies.  The complainant has made this complaint.

2.       In this case opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a version-cum-evidence and the opposite party No.1 had filed a memo stating that the version of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 be read as its version also.  In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

          The purchase of the computer is admitted.  The mother board was replaced on 17.09.2010, 19.10.2010, 11.01.2011 and on 12.09.2011 it was repaired on 12.10.2010, 28.04.2010, 30.07.2010, 26.10.2010, 03.09.2011, 22.09.2011.  There is no manufacturing defect.  The complainant has not obtained any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence, the opposite parties have stated that their version and documents be read as their evidence.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service/manufacturing defect in the computer?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that on 26.10.2008 the complainant has purchased the Desktop Computer, Model HP Pavilion having Model No.16610IN, printer monitor along with Pen drive and Mouse Pad with Gel and Dust cover from the opposite party No.1 which was manufactured by opposite party No.2.  It is seen that right from that day as admitted by the opposite parties the complainant had taken the computer for repairs on several occasion with opposite party No.1 who got it repaired from opposite party No.3.  The details of the repair that has been done as admitted by the opposite parties are:-

That means right from 12.10.2009 till date the RAM was removed and replaced Card reader was rectified, speaker were replaced mouse was replaced, shared the Care pack number, motherboard replaced several times.  That means within one year from the date of purchase there was a problem and it continued till 22.09.2011.  That means there is manufacturing defect, even according to the opposite parties statement.  How this manufacturing defect caused is not explained.  When a computer an electrical/electronic item gives trouble 10 time within warranty period it amounts to manufacturing defect.  This job-card produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that the computer is not in a fit condition to work.  The complainant wanted its replacement several times.  It has issued notice to the opposite parity Nos. 1 to 3 wanted the computer back for replacement at one point of time and at another point of time they want to pay back the money.  Hence if we direct the opposite parties to refund the money with interest and direct the complainant to return the computer to the opposite parties we think that will meet the ends of justice.

7.       Here the allegation of the complainant is that he has stored several files in the computer for which there is no material.  The complainant has not produced any document to show which material he has stored in the computer and when it was lost.  Anyway the complainant has not suffered any damages to the computer till 12.10.2009, from the date of purchase till 28.04.2010.  It had no problem so there may not be much stored files there.  From 28.10.2010 the computer had major problems.  Hence there was no possibility for the complainant in store anything and getting it lost.  Even the learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly stated at the time of the arguments that they are prepared to replace the computer or refund the money.  This submission is well accorded.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.       The complainant is directed to return the computer with all accessories that was purchased on 26.10.2010 to the opposite party No.1 within seven days from the date of this order.  The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.33,250/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till payment within 30 days.

3.       The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

4.        The parties are directed to comply to the above said order as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19^th Day of January 2012)

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT