IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday the 20^th day of August, 2011

Filed on 24.03.11

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.103/11

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Sri.Podiyan.V.S,                                         1.         The General Manager, BSNL,

Vazhappallil Kizhakkathil,                           Pitchu Iyer Junction, Alappuzha.                        ,

Puthenchantha.P.O.,                                              

Vallykunnam,                                              2.         Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL,

Mavelikkara Thaluk,                                               Vallykunnam Exchange, Vallykunnam.

Pin-690 501.                                                          (By Adv.Cheriyan Kuruvila)

                                                                        3.         The Manager, HCL Info Systems Ltd.,

                                                                                    Midland Arena, Marottichuvadu Junction,

Edappally, Kochi, Pin-682 024.

 (By Adv.Babu Joseph)                       

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant's son Mr.Alex.P is being afflicted with renal ailment. Consequent to the doctor's advice who treats the complainant's son, the complainant in June 2010 applied for a computer-internet connection from the scheme jointly arranged by the opposite parties. In line with the scheme, the complainant paid off Rs.2,200/-(Rupees two thousand and two hundred only) as initial payment for the same, and had to pay Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred only) for the computer system and Rs.150/-(Rupees one hundred and fifty only) for the broadband connection. On 17^th August 2010, a computer system was delivered to the complainant through a courier service. The representatives of the 3^rd opposite party, in October 2010 turned up to install the same. Upon the container being unwrapped, it was found that the monitor frame was broken. On 22^nd December the same was replaced. Thereafter, the knob of the computer system failed to function properly. The complainant, time and again intimated the said factum to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not make any sort of response. In the meantime, the complainant had to make payment of two bills to the opposite parties. The complainant and his family sustained immeasurable mental agony. The opposite parties service is absolutely deficient. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties appeared, and the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties filed joint version. The 3^rd opposite party filed separate version. The 1^st two opposite parties contend that they have only provided the Broad Band connection. There is no any sort of allegation against the said connection. According to the said opposite parties, they are in no way concerned with or liable for whatsoever imperfection or defect if any is there with the computer system. The 3^rd opposite party contends that the complainant never approached them with any grievance as to the same. According to them, at the time of the system being installed, a minor fissure on the monitor was exposed, and the same was replaced forthwith. It is contended that thereafter the complainant never approached the opposite party with any manner of complaints. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the said opposite party, the opposite party asserts.

2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant’s son (Power of Attorney) himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties save filing version, no further evidence has been adduced.

3. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the complainant sustains service deficiency, and resultant mental agony at the hands of the opposite party?

(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4. We went through the pleadings, submissions and other materials placed on record by the parties. The consistent case of the complainant is that the computer system was malfunctioning or nonfunctioning right from its installation. Admittedly, when the package was ripped open, the monitor of the system had already been broken. According to the complainant, the knob of the computer thereafter fell inoperative. We carefully perused the materials placed on record by the complainant. It is to be borne in mind that the system was purchased for the complainant's ailing son. The complainant’s son when mounted the witness box also asserts that the system was inoperative, and over and above the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party to get the defect rectified. Obviously, the 3^rd opposite party fervently cross-examined the complainant’s son, but nothing consequential in their favor was brought out. Again, we find no reason why the complainant should approach this Forum with such a case, if the computer system was functioning properly. It is pertinent to note that, except making contentions, the opposite parties did not take any meaningful steps to refute the complainant’s case. We subscribe to the contentions of the 1^st two opposite parties that they have nothing to do with the allegations as to the computer system. In this context, we are of the view that the complainant case as to the 3^rd opposite party stands well-substantiated, and as such the 3^rd opposite party alone is accountable for the grievance of the complainant.

In view of the facts and findings herein above, the 3^rd opposite party is directed to replace the computer system with a similar brand new one, and pay to the complainant a compensation amount of Rs.l0,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony, sufferings, harassment and physical strain and after consideration of the pitiable condition of the complainant’s son with 9% interest from the date of filing of the instant complaint before this Forum till the date of full payment. The said opposite party shall comply with the order within 15 days of receipt of this order.

Complaint stands disposed accordingly.  No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 20^th day of August, 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi           

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Alex.P (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The Letter of Authorization

Ext. A2            -           The Forwarder Way Bill No.64095

Ext. A3            -           The Copy of the Retail Invoice of HCL Infosystems Ltd

Ext. A4            -           The Telephone Bill dated, 07.12.2010 and Receipt dated, 26.12.2010

Ext. A5            -           The Customer call Cum Service Slip dated, 22.12.2010

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil 

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-   

Compared by:-