COMPLAINT FILED: 25.03.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 12th AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.693/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT C.K.Ravindranath,<br /> No.25/1, Sannidhi Road,<br /> Opp: Bangalore Chapter (ICWA),<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY 1. Hewlett Packard India<br /> Sales Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> No.24, Salapuria Arena, <br /> Adugodi, <br /> Hosur Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 030.<br /> <br /> 2. Hewlett Packard India <br /> Sales Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> #177E, 1st Floor, 100ft Road,<br /> Indira Nagar, HAL IIstage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> 3. The Maha Electronics,<br /> Hewlett Packard Service <br /> Center,<br /> No.28-8-2, 1st Floor,<br /> 15th Cross, 3rd Block, <br /> Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 011.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the computer and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant is a financial adviser he has maintained a computer to promote his avocation. Complainant faced some problem with his computer, hence approached the OP for repairs. OP sent quotation for the service. OP-3 is the authorized service center. OP-3 took the computer for repairs. Though complainant patiently waited for more than 15 days, OP has not attended to the said defect and cured it. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to detect the defect and cure the same and deliver the computer immediately went in futile. Hence for no fault of his he is forced to face both mental agony and financial loss. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP in not delivering the computer in time. Hence, he felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have rectified the defect in the said computer kept it ready for the delivery. After detecting the defect they have replaced certain parts. Due to non availability of spare parts in time, they took some breathing time. After getting the spares, OP repaired it and asked the complainant to pay charges and collect the unit. But he failed to do so. At the time of repairs the computer was out of warranty period. Under such circumstances OP cannot extend the free service, complainant was kept informed about the little delay in attending the repairs. Thereafter to the reasons best know to him complainant failed to approach OP and collect his computer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merit. Among these grounds, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative.<br /> Point No.2:- Negative. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the financial adviser and using the computer for his profession. He noticed some defect in the computer, hence approached the OP for repairs. OP sent quotation. Complainant accepted it, but still it is not repaired immediately. Complaint waited for more than 15 days, OP is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. For want of the said computer complainant being a financial adviser is unable to promote his profession and avocation. It is further alleged even though complainant has made repeated requests and demands to OP to return his computer after attending to repairs it went in futile. On account non availability of the computer complainant is prevented from discharging his obligations. Hence he felt deficiency in service on part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 9. OP on the other hand specifically contended that the said computer was given to them for repairs after the expiry of the warranty. They did detect the defect and cured it by replacing certain part. As the said parts were not available during the relevant period they took some time for repairs. They contacted the complainant and narrated about little delay in repair of the said computer. We find there is a fairness on the part of the OP. After repairs they intimated the complainant to come and collect the computer. It appears complainant failed to head to the said requests, on the other hand caused the legal notice to OP on 02.02.2009, we have gone through the legal notice. <br /> <br /> 10. OP replied the said legal notice on 04.03.2009. On the perusal of the said reply it speaks to the quotation accepted by the complainant none availability of the spare and then they having replaced the PC Board and kept the computer ready. Complainant is required to pay Rs.14,821/- being the cost of replaced PC Board. Documents to that effect are produced. It appears complainant to avoid the payment of said cost of PC Board has come up with this complaint that to on 11.03.2009. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be fair and honest. Of course as a good gesture OP waived the service charges of Rs.1,250/- and they have also offered 90 days warranty on the replaced part, with all that complainant has filed this complaint. <br /> <br /> 11. In view of the elaborate discussions made by us remedy is still open to the complainant to redress his grievance. If he is really interested in his computer he can make payment of the PC Board which was replaced by OP and take back his computer. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant, in our view he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Complainant appears to be devoid of merit. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief the claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br /> <br /> <br />