D.O.F. 16.07.2011

                                            D.O.O.  18.01.2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 18^th day of January,  2014.

C.C.No.223/2011

Ramachandran N.K.

S/o. Appu,

‘Nandanam’,                                               :                  Complainant

P.O. Dharmadam,

Thalassery , Kannur District.

(Rep. by Adv. Pramod Krishnan)

1. I-Tech

   South Bazar,

   Kakkad Road,                                          :                  Opposite Parties

   Kannur-2.

(Rep. by Adv. Babu Mandein)

2. Intel Technologies India (P) Ltd.,

   136, Airport Road, Bangalore-560 017

O R D E R

Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund `5,083 and to pay a sum of `1000 as compensation to the complainant.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows. The complainant has purchased a mother board from the opposite party for his personal computer for a sum of `5,083.  At the time of purchase opposite party has promised three years guarantee including replacement.  The mother board become defective very soon and the complainant contacted the opposite party several times for repairing or replacement.  But the opposite party did not come to repair the motherboard.  So complainant sent a letter to opposite party stating those facts.  But the opposite party neither sent any reply nor contacted the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party.  On receipt of the same the staff of the opposite party came to complainant’s house and took the motherboard on 26.05.2011 promising to replace the same within two weeks.  But the mother board has not been returned to the complainant.  So this complaint to refund the price of motherboard with compensation.

          After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to opposite party.  As opposite party has not appeared after receiving notice he was set exparte.  Later opposite party appeared and filed petition to set aside exparte order and they filed version.  As per the version the complainant impleaded 2^nd opposite party.  Although notice was served properly 2^nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and they were set exparte.

          The case of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant purchased motherboard only for `2836 and the 2^nd opposite party is responsible for the manufacturing defect if there is any. They further contended that the motherboard has been damaged due to  the careless use of complainant and as per the report of 2^nd opposite party the defect was caused due to lightening for which they will not provide warranty. As the 1^st opposite party is only the dealer there is no deficiency in service from their part and they are not liable to pay any compensation. 

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence in the case consist of oral listing of PW1 and DW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

Admittedly the complainant purchased motherboard from the opposite party.  As per Ext.A1 it can be seen that the price of the mother board is only `2836 and not `5083 as stated by the complainant.  Ext.A2 and A3 letters show that the opposite party has not taken any steps to rectify the defect or replace the motherboard of complainant.  The motherboard is having a warranty of three years and it is clear from Ext.A1.  Ext.A5 document proves that the staff of the opposite party taken the motherboard only on 26.05.2011 from the complainant i.e., only after the issuance of Ext.A3 lawyer notice.  That itself shows the gross deficiency in service of opposite party.  As the motherboard is having three years warranty it is the duty of opposite party either to rectify the defect or to replace the motherboard.  But they have not done so.

Another contention of the opposite party is that the motherhood has been damaged due to the external causes which was considered as physical damage and they will not provide warranty for that.  It can be seen that no separate warranty card was issued by opposite party.  There was no conditions stated in the bill for providing warranty.  Ext.B1 document cannot be relied upon as the date of the same is 23.05.2011.  Whereas Ext.A5 document it can be seen that the staff of opposite party took the motherboard of complainant on 26.05.2011.  So the above contention of opposite party is devoid of any merit.  The whole acts of the opposite party after receiving the complaint of motherboard of complainant shows there was deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.

As the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant the next question is regarding the remedy entitled to the complainant.  Ext.A6 document shows that the complainant has purchased another motherboard.  So no purpose will be served by replacing the motherboard.  So the opposite party is liable to refund `2836 towards the price of motherhood.  It can be seen that the acts of the opposite party caused great hardships to the complainant.  So we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to given an amount of `1000 as compensation alongwith `1000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund `2836 (Rupees Two Thousand Eight Hundred and thirty six only) to the complainant along with `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and litigation cost of `1000(Rupees One Thousand only).  The opposite party shall comply the order within one month of the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

          Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2014.

                           Sd/-                      Sd/-              Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Invoice issued by 1^st OP dated 16.03.2010.

A2.  Letter issued by complainant to OP dated 16.03.2010.

A3.  Copy of lawyer notice dated 16.05.2011.

A4.  Acknowledgment card.

A5.  Report by Technician.

A6.  Bill issued by Cachet Computers dated 05.10.11.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1. E-mail correspondence between 1^st and 2^nd OP.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1. C.M. Sajeev.

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT