BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 22/07/2010

Date of Order : 31/08/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 412/2010

Between

 

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant purchased a computer and its accessories from the opposite party for Rs. 21,300/- on 05-02-2010. The opposite party is a manufacturer-cum-seller of computers and accessories. The opposite party assured and guaranteed the quality and proper working of the computer at the time of purchase of the products. However, from the next day onwards, the computer developed problems regarding booting etc. the matter was reported to the opposite party. After two months, the opposite party sent a technician to look into the above problem. The technician informed that the mother board, hard disc and the RAM of the computer is not working and needs replacement and the parts were replaced. However, the computer developed problems on the very next day and the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party. Thereafter no proper attention was given to the complaint, though the complainant reminded the opposite party on many occasions regarding his complaint. On 02-06-2010, a mechanic from the opposite party took away the mother board, hard disc and RAM of the computer for repairing. On 03-07-2010, the opposite party sent back the computer claiming it is repaired. However, the computer is not still working. It is remaining with the complainant without any use. On 06-07-2010, the complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite party. But neither replaced the computer nor repaired the defect. Hence this complaint. The complainant seeking direction against the opposite party to replace the computer with a new one or refund the cost of Rs. 21,300/- by the opposite party along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

2. Version of the opposite party

The complainant has purchased only the computer accessories from the opposite party's shop. But it is not true that the opposite party neither delivered the accessories to his house nor informed that necessary software programmes would be installed. The complainant took the system with good condition from the shop of the opposite party after proper inspection and testing. The complainant was also always doubt about that the functioning of the computer and used to make frequent queries regarding the functioning. The opposite party has given prompt service to the complainant as and when required. As per the request of the complainant, the technician of the opposite party went to the house of the complainant and rectified the defects and taken the mother board of the computer and forwarded to the company for replacement. In many occasions, the opposite party's technicians went to the house of the complainant. The defects occurred due to the lack of proper knowledge regarding the usage of the system by the complainant and his family members. There is absolutely no merits in the complaint preferred by the complainant and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant and the opposite party appeared through the counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Thereafter, we have heard the respective counsel.

4. The points that came up for determination are as follows :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the disputed computer or to get the computer replaced?

2. Compensation and costs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Exts. A1 and A2 were the tax invoices show the transaction between the parties. The opposite party admitted in their version that “the technician of the opposite party went to the house of the complainant and rectified the defects and taken the mother board of the computer and forwarded to the company for replacement. In many occasions the opposite party's technicians went to the house of the complainant.” Those averments itself show that within a short span of time the disputed system suffers various defects and same was repaired on several occasions. Ext. A3 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 07-07-2010. According to the opposite party, they are not the manufacturer of the computer. They are only the dealer of the computer components. Apart from the oral evidence of the opposite party, nothing is on record to substantiate the contention that they are not the manufacturer of the system. Though they have contended that they have delivered only the components of the system, we cannot accept the same especially since admittedly they have attended to the defects noted by the complainant more than once. In the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that the opposite party is liable to refund the price as per Ext. A1 tax invoice and the price of accessories as per Ext. A2 tax invoice with interest to the complainant. The Hon'ble National Commission decided in Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (IV (2007) CPJ 294 (NC) ), wherein it is held that there is no illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Fora in ordering refund of the price of the gadget. But we are not ordering any compensation, since we have ordered refund of the entire price as per Ext. A1 and A2 invoices with interest. Nevertheless, the complainant is entitled to get litigation costs, since the opposite party ought to have settled the dispute at the outset.

6. Therefore, we allow the complaint as follows :

1. The opposite party shall refund Rs. 17,900/- as per Ext. A1 tax invoice and Rs. 3,400/- as per Ext. A2 invoice to the complainant together with 12% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. In that event, the complainant shall hand over the disputed device to the opposite party simultaneously.

2. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

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 31^st day of August 2011.