CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 185/2010
Wednesday, the 20th day of June , 2012.
Petitioner : Adv. K.S Suresh,
Kurup Chambers Building,
Collectorate P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Avaneesh V.N)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) H.P E-Mail,
India – Customer care @ hp.com.
(By Adv. A.V George)
2) The Manager,
Oxygen, The Digital Shop
Pulimootil Arcade, KK Road,
Kanjikuzhi P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Benny Cherian)
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 31..07..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner purchased a DESKTOP, manufactured by first opposite party, second opposite party is the dealer of first opposite party. The cost of the DESKTOP and other accessories is Rs. 23,900/- . According to petitioner he purchased system for his official use. After installation of system it began to slow and USB is not responding. Petitioner intimated the complaint to second opposite party. One of the mechanic of second opposite party examined and reported that system had no complaint. After a few days system shown “SLOW” by day by day and it was informed to the second opposite party. second opposite party examined the system on 27..08..2009 and taken the hard disc in their custody and later returned on 19..9..2009. The
-2-
complaint of the system were continued again and again and it was reported to the second opposite party. On intimation first opposite party deputed one agency named ‘Maha Electronic’ for repair. They replaced the hard disc there after also complaint persist. On 5..10..2009 second opposite party set another engineer and he installed a new soft ware. But after re-installation of hard disc said system worked for a few days. Matter was reported to second opposite parties office . On 26..10..2009 an engineer of second opposite party came and examined the system and assured the petitioner that matter will be intimated to the opposite parties. According to petitioner act of opposite party in supplying a defective DESKTOP amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to replace the defective DESKTOP with defect free one or else refund the purchase price of system. Petitioner claims Rs. 35,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings.
First opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to first opposite party the product manufactured by first opposite party pass through stringent quality checks and test trials and is approved by appropriate authority to certify the IT product. Without relying on an expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 13 (1) Consumer Protection Act. Fora cannot come to a conclusion of defect to the machine. Opposite party admitted purchase of system. Intimation of defects by the complaints were admitted by opposite party. As per the complaint on 17..9..2009 hard disc drive was replaced. The problems of Mother Board also resolved. RAM and system board was also replaced.
-3-
According to opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition with their costs.
Second opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. The managing partner is not made a necessary party and incorporating the manager as a party in the party array is bad in law . So petition is not maintainable. Opposite party is selling products of various companies on a meager margin. As far as second opposite party is concerned they have given proper service on intimation of defect of system. According to second opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition with their costs.
Point No. 1
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 both parties and Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that DESKTOP manufactured by the first opposite party and sold by second opposite party, is defective. Admittedly the system was purchased on 15..10..2008. Opposite party admitted that on 27..8..2009 the system was examined for defect. Ext. A5 is the service call report of first opposite party. Ext. A6 is the service call report Dtd: 19..9..2009 issued by opposite party. Ext. A7 is the service call report of ‘Maha Electrical’ Dtd 26..9..2009. Ext. A8 is service call report of the first opposite party Ext. A9 is the copy of service call report Dtd: 26..10..2009 of ‘Ozone on care’. From Ext. A5 to A9 documents it can be seen that the
-4-
system is showing system slow, HDD returned, system hanging, and system slow on dates from 27..8..2009 to 28..10..2009. From Ext. A5 to A9 documents it can be seen that on 27..8..2009 formatting was done. On 19..9..2007 some repairs were done. From Ext. A7 documents it can be seen that hard disc were replaced on 26..9..2009 . From Ext. A8 it can be seen that installation was done on 5..10..2009. From Ext. A9 it can be seen that some repairs were done on the said date. From the service reports it can be seen that the system supplied by second opposite party “manufactured by first opposite
party is a defective one”. Learned counsel for first opposite party vehumently and assertively argued that in the lack of expert evidence of defect fora cannot allow petition for replacement of the machine. In our view said contention of the learned senior counsel is not acceptable because, from Ext. A5 to A9 it can be seen that a newly purchased system during its warranty period showing complaints one after another is definitely a defective one. In our view act of opposite party in supplying an inferior quality ‘DESKTOP’ to petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result opposite party is ordered to replace defective system with a brand new HP commercial DESKTOP of same quality purchased by the petitioner or else refund Rs. 23,000/- , price of the system to the petitioner . Opposite party is ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceedings to the petitioner. Without saying what had happened definitely caused much inconvenience and hard
-5-
ship to the petitioner. So, opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Both opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to compensate the petitioner. The order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of copy of this order. On compliance of the order opposite party is liberty to take the defective DESKTOP system. Order if not complied as directed, award amount will carrying 9% interest from 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 20th day of June, 2012.
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 advance cash receipt dtd: 9..10..2000 from Oxygen
Digital shop.
Ext. A2: Copy of cash receipt Dtd: 15..10..2008 from Oxygen Digital
shop.
Ext. A3: Copy of retail invoice No. B-2566 Dtd: 14..10..2008 from
Oxygen Digital Shop.
Ext. A4: Copy of service call report No. 30809 Dtd: 4..6..2009 from
Ozone Care
Ext. A5: Copy of service call report No. 170 Dtd: 27..8..2009 from
oxygen care.
Ext. A6: Copy of service call report No. 459 Dtd: 19..9..2009 from
Oxygen care.
Ext. A7: Copy of service call report from Maha Electronic Pvt. Ltd Dtd:
26..9..2009
Ext. A8: Copy of service call report No. 466 dtd: 5..10..2009 from
oxygencare.
Ext. A9: Copy of service call report No. 41818 dtd: 26..10..2009 from
Ozone care.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
amp/ 5cs.
