O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavnath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 29..2..2008 is as follows: Petitioner is an Educational Institution run by the C.M.I Congregation at Changanacherry. Petitioner imparts education to the students in various sectors. -2- One of such courses is the MCA course, which is recognized by the M.G University. Petitioner intended to purchase 46 Laptop Computers for the purpose of the study of the above mentioned MCA course. When quotations were invited first opposite party approached to the petitioner’s institution and assured that Laptop computers and battery attached, offered by them were very superior quality with a minimum battery back up of 4 ½ hours. Battery back up was one of the most important criteria for the system, as the students required a long time battery support. Accordingly petitioner’s institution purchased 46 numbers of said Laptop computers with equal number of batteries. Petitioner paid Rs. 5,00,000/- towards advance sale reconsideration on 4..12..2006. The balance amount of Rs. 12,52,600/- was paid to the first opposite party on 16..1..2006. Even though first opposite party assured the petitioner that the equipment supplied by them were of extremely good quality with minimum battery back up of 4 ½ hours, the system started trouble shooting within a short period of its installation. The batteries provided a back up of less than 2 hours. The system showed complaints, both hardware and soft ware . Most of the equipment developed problems with the CD drive, bad monitor screen, A/c adapter etc. The operative system like windows were hopelessly defective. Petitioner informed the opposite parties about the defects but they showed little interest in rectifying the same. After persuasion and compulsion first opposite party conducted service camp in the college on 7..2..2007, where above mentioned problems were pointed out in person. But opposite party has not rectified the -3- problems. With within a short times span of 6 months 22 adaptors got damaged. 3rd opposite party replaced 8 batteries out of the 46 batteries. Though there was an offer to replace the remaining batteries opposite parties did not do so. On 22..10..2007 petitioner issued a legal notice to all opposite parties demanding them of replace all the 46 lap top computers along with its batteries with defect free one and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. All the opposite parties accepted the notice and had not heed to the demands of the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to replace 46 numbers of Laptop computers and 46 number of batteries with defect free lap top or in the alternative refund of the value of the article up to the tune of Rs. 17,52,600/- with 12 % interest per annum. Petitioner also claims compensation in the tune Rs. 2,00,000/- and cost of the proceedings. Notice to the opposite parties served opposite parties 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version notice of 3rd opposite party was served 1st and 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version notice of 3rd opposite party was served d opposite party has not entered appearance and filed any version. So, 3rd opposite party was set ex-parte. Opposite party 1 and 2 filed version contenting that they are only dealers of professional service providers of Lap Top computers manufactured by the 3rd opposite party . According to the first and second opposite party Lap Top supplied by the opposite party are of very superior quality and of latest technology, -4- manufactured by the world renowned Hewlett Packard. The averment of the petitioner with regard to back up minimum is denied. First and second opposite party denied all averments regarding the defect as alleged by the petitioner in the petition. According to the contesting opposite party they promptly given service as and the needed including a service camp in the college premises. They also recommended certain measures to cure certain defects including replacement of batteries and the 3rd opposite party has replaced the same. According to the first and second opposite party there is no deficiency in service. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and cost? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties, deposition of PW1 Ext. A1 to A10 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. X1 Commission report. Point No. 1 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the 46 Laptop computers given by the first opposite party, manufactured by the 3rd opposite party, were suffered from several complaint. System showed hardware and soft were complaint. Batteries provided shown back up of less than 2 hours. Most of the equipment developed problems with CD drive, keyboard , monitor screen A/c adapter etc. Windows were defective. -5- Petitioner produced the Performa invoice given by the first opposite party to the petitioner said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 the first opposite party assured a battery with 4 ½ hours back up support for optional second battery with back up to 9 and 14 hours. Ext. A5 is the defect report showing the various defects in the laptop including battery back up monitor problems etc. Ext. A6 is the letter issued by the Arun K.S one of the employee of the first opposite party. In A6 letter employee of the first opposite party stated that the first opposite party conducted a service camp on 7..8..2007 on the petitioners institution. They found battery back up. Utter disabling services and minimum power consuming condition. Ext. A7 is the battery back up report just after the service camp conducted on 7..8..2007. An expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum he filed X1 report. In X1 report expert commissioner, who is the department head of the MCA department. MACFAST, Thiruvalla details about the defect of the computers. Further more he reported that after examination of all laptop in his view all laptop have a problem of battery back up. Further more, he opined that lap top supplied to the complainant is defective with inferior quality accessories. The commissioner also reported some problem related to key power CD drive and battery charges. In our view from the available evidence it can be seen that the laptop computers supplied by the first opposite party ,manufactured by 3rd opposite party is defective. Act of the opposite parties in our view is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result opposite parties are ordered to replace the 46 numbers of -6- Laptop computers and 46 numbers of battery supply by them to the complainant with defect free laptop computers as assured by the first opposite party. The first and second opposite party are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order . If the Laptops are not replaced as ordered above petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs. 17,52,600/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of this petition till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Petitioner is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,000/- cost of the proceedings. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of quotation given by first opposite party to the petitioner Dtd: 22..11..2006 Ext. A2: Copy of performa invoice Dtd: 4..12..2006 Ext. A3: Delivery chelan Dtd: 16..1..2007 ext. A4: Installation report Dtd: 19..1..2007 Ext. A5: Defect report dtd: 6..7..2007 Ext. A6: Battery back up report dtd: 7..8..2007 Ext. A7: Battery back up report dtd: 22..8..2007 Ext. A8: Lawyer’s notice dtd: 18..10..2007 Ext. A9series Postal receipts Ext. A10series AD card. Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Details and instruction above the laptops. X1 Commission report submitted by Tiju Thomas. By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
