Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member - I)

                    Complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

          2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainants are the Managing Partner and the Manager of the textile business group named ‘Vaidyans Silks’ functioning at Adoor.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the supplier and the manufacturer of ‘LENOVO All In One’ brand named desktop computers.  For the textile showroom 15 numbers of Lenovo computers were purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party in November 2013 by paying Rs. 21,900/- for each machine unit.  The warranty period is mentioned as two years.  Along with the computer units, accessories worth Rs. 11,78,566/- were also purchased from the 1^st opposite party.

                     3. From the very beginning of the month of November 2013, 3 computers started to show certain troubles.  Regarding the complaint a complaint lodged both by way of phone calls and e-mails on 11.12.2013.  After few days, the total 4 computers were became faulty from the billing sections and the details were messaged to the Customer Care Section of Lenovo.  Thereafter on 10^th February 2014 complainants sent e-mail about the failure of four C 240 model computer bearing machine serial numbers CS-00901906, CS-00915930, CS-00776896 and CS – 00776939.  A technician of the opposite party visited the showroom and checked the system but no result.  Due to the non- functioning of the computers in the billing section the complainants forced to appoint additional number of staffs in the billing section.  By such acts, the complainants incurred additional financial burden.

                      4. Complainants’ send a lawyers notice to the opposite parties demanding proper service and replacement of the defaulted computer units on 02.05.2014.  But the opposite parties send reply notice stating false contentions.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service to the opposite parties for which they are liable to the complainants.  Hence this complaint for replacing the defaulted computers or to refund the cost of the computers with compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.

                    6. In this case opposite parties are exparte. 

          7. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   8. The evidence of their complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complaint as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6.  After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

                  9. The Point:- Complainants allegation against the opposite party is that, they had purchased 15 numbers of “Lenovo” computers from the 1^st opposite party by paying Rs.21,900/- for each unit.  2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said computers.  Along with the computers complainant purchased accessories from the 1^st opposite party worth Rs.11,78,566/-.   Within a short span of period 4 computers become faulty and the matter was informed to the opposite party through e–mail.  But they have not turned up.  Finally complainants sent legal notice to the opposite parties.  But they sent reply notice with false contentions.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainants.    

             10.  In order to prove the case of the complainants, 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit along with 6 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit 1^st complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6.  Ext.A1 is the Purchase Invoice of the Computers. Ext.A2 is the copy of Ledger Account of the computer and accessories.   Ext.A3 series are the photocopy of e-mail correspondents with the complainant and opposite parties.  Ext.A4 is the legal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite parties dated 02.05.2014.  Ext.A5 is the reply notice dated 24.07.2014.  Ext.A6 series are the Acknowledgement cards and postal receipts of Ext.A4.

           11. On a perusal of Ext.A1  invoice dated 09.11.2013 we can see that 1^st opposite party received Rs.1,11,480/-  from the complainants for 4 numbers of ‘All in One PC Lenovo’ computer including vat and for 2 years extra warranty.  According to the complainant within few days 4 computers become faulty and the matter was intimated to the opposite parties.  From Ext.A3 series it is evident that complainant sent e-mail to the opposite parties reporting the complaints of the computers.  But opposite parties did not turned up.

        12. Even though complainants claimed Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation for additional salary of staff and damage caused to the reputation of the business group, they have not produced any evidence before us to prove their claim.  So such claim is not allowable.  Since opposite parties are exparte we find no reason to disbelieve the complaint allegation regarding the complaint of the 4 computers.  Therefore, complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged.  Hence we find that opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the non–repairing of the computers during the warranty period.  Therefore this complaint is partly allowed.  Point found accordingly.

             13. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to replace the faulty 4 computers with new one of the same brand or to pay Rs.1,11,480/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Four hundred and eighty only) the price of the computers to the complainants with cost of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainants within 15 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the computers Rs.1,11,480/- along with the cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2015.

         (Sd/-)                                                                                                               

K.P. Padmasree,

   (Member – I)                                                                                                                                  

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)       :    (Sd/-)               

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                       :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Joji Vaidyan 

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Purchase Invoice of the Computers.

A2 :  Copy of Ledger Account  of Computer & Accessories. 

A3 series :  Photocopy of e-mail correspondents with the complainant

                  and opposite parties.

A4   : Legal notice dated 02.05.2014 issued by the complainants

         to the opposite parties.

A5  : Reply notice dated 24.07.2014 and 16.05.2014 sent by the opposite parties

         to the complainant. 

A6 series   :  Acknowledgement card and postal receipts of Ext.A4.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil. 

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Joji G. Vaidyan, Managing Partner, M/s. Vaidyan’s Silks,

     Adoor.P.O, Pathanamthitta.

               (2) Raju Samuel Oommen, Manager, M/s Vaidyan’s Silks,

     Adoor.P.O, Pathanamthitta.

                (3) Sales Manager, Dreams Infotech, King City Arcade,

                    Karunagappally, Kollam .

 (4) Managing Director, Lenovo India (P) Ltd, Bangalore.

      Through Dreams Infotech, Karunagappally, Kollam .

 (5) The Stock File.