orders
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bidhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 295/2009
Thursday, the 28th day of July , 2011
Petitioner : Jacob George,
B 38/149, HNL Qtrs.
News print Nagar P.O
Kottayam – 686 616.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) H.P India Ltd.
Customer Care Executive,
Hewlett Parkard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi,
Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560030.
(By Adv. A.V George)
2) Supreme Computer System
Above Airtel,
Opp. Plantation Corporation,
KK Road, Kanjikuzhy,
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Joseph Thampan)
3) Redington (India ) Ltd.,
Papali Chambersm 42/2152,
1st Floor, Tatapuram Sukumaran Road,
Cochin – 682018.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner, filed on 3..10..2009 is as follows:
Petitioner purchased a computer from second opposite party, on 29..9..2006. From the date of purchase itself computer shown defects. During shut down of the computer it automatically restarted. Petitioner intimated the defects to the dealer of computer. Petitioner later informed the defects to the first opposite party, manufacturer. First opposite party directed the petitioner to Re-format the computer. According to the petitioner after Re-format for a short period , there was no complaints to the computer. Later the computer shown earlier complaints. From
-2-
6..5..2009 on words computer showed several defects. Opposite party on several occasions replaced the different parts of the computer. But so far the defects of the computer were not cured. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in supplying a defective computer amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for refund of price of the computer along with cost and compensation.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate version. First opposite party contented that petition is not maintainable. According to first opposite party company supplies its products in the market for sale through wholesalers who further sell it to retailer. First opposite party has no privity of contract with retailer and has no control over the business activity of retailer. According to the first opposite party products manufactured and supplied by first opposite party are of good quality and first opposite party availed its service in prompt. As and when petitioner lodged complaints same were promptly attended and issues were rectified to the satisfaction of the petitioner by carrying out repairs and replacing the required parts. According to 1st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Second opposite party is only a retail out let of the first opposite party. They admitted purchase of the computer on 29..9..2006. At the time of purchase second opposite party intimated the petitioner that service and replacement of parts were directly done by first opposite party. Subsequent to the purchase, service was done by the 3rd opposite party. According to the second opposite party they have no liability and no relief is allowable against second opposite party.
-3-
The 3rd opposite party filed version. According to the 3rd opposite party they are one of the service providers of the first opposite party. On each and every time when the petitioner had lodged the call first opposite party deputed its service engineers and rendered effective services immediately. Being service provider 3rd opposite party acted as per the warranty terms and conditions of the first opposite party. According to the 3rd opposite party, first opposite party is liable for any manufacturing defect. 3rd opposite party prays 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 costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner, Opposite party 2 & Opposite party 3 and Ext. A1 to A15 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 series and B2 documents on the side of the 2nd opposite party.
Point No. 1
Admittedly petitioner purchased disputed computer from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party. 3rd opposite party is the authorized service provider of the first opposite party. First opposite party in their version admitted that on 26..3..2007, 29..3..2007, 24.9..2007, 28..9.2007, 16..10..2008, 15..4..2009, 20..4..2009, 4..5..2009, 5..5..2009, 8..5..2009, 23..5..2009, 7..9..2009, 2..2..2010 and on 6..5..2010 disputed computer had shown complaints and complaints were rectified by the first opposite party. Admittedly from the very beginning of purchase of computer with within warranty period itself it showed serious of complaints. Petitioner produced copy of the call report and service report with
-4-
regard to the defect of the computer unit. Documents were marked as Ext. A2 to A14. From Ext. A2 to A14 documents it can be seen that the computer is defective. So, inference that can be drawn is that computer unit, which is manufactured by the first opposite party, and supplied by the second opposite party, is defective. In our view act of the first and second opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result first and second opposite party is ordered to refund Rs. 57,250/-, cost of the computer, to the petitioner. First and second opposite parties are ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings no cost and compensation is ordered. Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of the order. If order is not complied as ordered award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
-5-
APPENDIX
Documents of the Petitioner:
Ext. A1: Copy of letter dtd: nil issued by Jacob George to 3rd opposite party.
Ext. A2: Copy of customer call report dtd: 15..3..2007
Ext. A3: Copy of customer call report dtd: 13..12..2006
Ext. A4: Copy of service call report Dtd: 6..5..2009
Ext. A5: “ “ Dtd: 26..5..2009
Ext. A6: “ “ Dtd: 11..7..2009
Ext. A7: “ “ Dtd: 14..8..2009
Ext. A8: “ “ Dtd: 18..8..2009
Ext. A9: “ “ Dtd” 22..8..2009
Ext. A10: “ “ Dtd: 24..8..2009
Ext. A11: “ “ Dtd:27..8..2009
Ext. A12 “ “ Dtd:10..9..2009
Ext. A13: “ “ Dtd: 17..12..2010
Ext. A14: “ “ Dtd: 20..12..2010
Ext. A15: Copy of bill Dtd: 29..9..2006.
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1 series: Copy of service call report.
Ext. B2: Copy of warranty & Support Guide.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
