IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 30th day of October, 2010
Filed on 27/05/2009
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 197/2009
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. R. Radhakrishnan 1. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Kochuparambil, Thejas Nagar 24, Salarpuria Arena, Adugodi
Pazhaveedu, Alappuzha Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 030
(By Adv. P.Krishna Kumar) (By Adv. G. Harikumar)
2. The Proprietor, Focuz Computers
Raiban Shopping Complex
West of Medical College Junction
Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant, on 6th June 2008 purchased a computer with LCD monitor from the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party had manufactured the said system. On 22nd January 2009, while the computer set was in use, the monitor thereof started burning and fumes poured out. The complainant instantaneously informed the said factum to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party instructed the complainant to get in touch with the 1st opposite party over phone in a toll free number. The complainant complied with the 2nd opposite party's instruction, and the 1st opposite party assured the complainant that the damaged monitor would be replaced with an afresh. On 27th January 2009, the officials of the 1st opposite party examined the computer system, and came to the conclusion that the alleged impairment obviously emerged from manufacturing defect. Yet the said officials demanded the cost of the fresh monitor to be replaced. The complainant caused to send lawyer notices to both the opposite parties which yielded no result. The complainant was constrained to arrange another system on hire for an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month. There is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties inflicted inexplicable mental agony and hardships to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notices being sent, the 1st opposite party turned up and filed version. The 2nd opposite party was not keen on appearing before this forum to contend the complainant’s case. The 1st opposite party contends that the complainant's purchase of the computer system was not within the knowledge of the 1st opposite party. According to the 1st opposite party, the bum cases would not come under the purview of the warranty the opposite party provided. The 1st opposite party never assured the complainant that the monitor would be replaced with a new one. The 1st opposite party contends that the monitor was burnt due to the improper handling of the system by the complainant. The 1st opposite party had duly informed the complainant that the warranty provided to the said system would not cover burning induced by offensive management of the gadget, the 1st opposite party forcefully argues. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the 1st opposite party asserts.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl and that of the expert as PW2, and the documents Exts. Al to A3, and Ext. Xl were marked. On the side of the opposite parties no one mounted the box nor marked any documents.
4. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the questions come up for
consideration are:-
(a) Whether the damage of the computer system was the consequence of its manufacturing defect or the mismanagement by the complainant?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously perused the materials placed on record by the parties. It appears that the factum of the computer system being burnt or damaged has not been seriously challenged by the 1st opposite party. The bone of the 1st opposite party's contention is that the burning of the system does not come under the purview of the terms of the warranty. The opposite party further contends that the complainant was duly informed as to the said particular attributes of the warranty, the opposite party provided to the complainant. It is worthier to notice that except for making such a statement, the said opposite party apparently, does not adopt any meaningful steps to substantiate its contention. Worthier yet to notice that the 1st opposite party abstains from entering the witness box and does not make itself available to be cross examined by the complainant. On top of all these, barring bare statements the opposite parties let in no evidence either oral or documental. In this context, we regret, we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the 1st opposite party. As we have already observed the 2nd opposite party does not make it a point to turn up before this Forum to contend the complainant’s case. On the other hand the complainant fortified the complainant’s case by causing PW2 the computer expert to mount the box who deposed in line with the complainant’s case. In view of these, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant’s case merit acceptance.
For the forgoing facts and circumstance of the case, the opposite parties are directed either to give back the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) or replace the damaged monitor with a similar brand new one. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - R.Radhakrishnan (Witness)
PW2 - Sudheesh (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the tax invoice
Ext.A2 - Copy of the legal notice
Ext.A3 - Postal receipt
Ext.X1 - Report
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
