Infomac Systems V/S Ajayakuamr - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

04/2003

Ajayakuamr - Complainant(s)

Versus

Infomac Systems - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2008

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 04/2003

Ajayakuamr						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Infomac Systems Salin Siby Kurian						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The gist of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant started an Internet Cafe as a source of his livelihood. The quotation WAS invited for the purchase of computer and other required equipments. the Opposite Party has given quotation as such that they are the authorized dealer of Compaq (Contd........ 2) 2 - Computer. The entire system was financed by the Overseas Bank with the assistance from Kerala Khadi Village Industries. The Complainant started the Cafe as the promotion of Panchayath Level Cyber Net Work and it was the first concern of the said nature in Wayanad. The Opposite Party supplied the equipments on 12.8.2002 and Cafe was inaugurated on 18.8.2002. The Opposite Party was given D.D for Rs.1,00,000/- from Indian Overseas Bank Sulthan Bathery Branch on 13.8.2002. On the very same day of the inauguration some of the systems installed by the Opposite Party were not working. When it was informed by the Complainant, the Opposite Party assured that the defect will be rectified on the next day itself. The items detailed in the quotation were not in accordance with the item supplied. Differences were noted by the Complainant in 3 Computers the seal 'Intel' is not seen. Some of the items were not new instead they were used one. The mother board of scanner was also used one. In the brochure given to the Complainant the specification was 6125 as shown in the quotation. But the supplied one was 6140. The concern of the Complainant was inaugurated on 18.8.2002. The advance payment to the Opposite Party already done and the dispute was talked upon intimation by the Complainant. The accessories which were to be supplied free of cost were charged by the Opposite Party. The entire unit of Celeron Personal Computer was the quotation of the Opposite Party. Except the processor the other equipments are not of Intel Company. The scanner mentioned in quotation was that of H.P products but the items supplied is different the UPS supplied was not working on the date of inauguration. There is no picture quality and speed to the system supplied and installed by the Opposite Party. No warranty was given for the items supplied and the warranty card was also not given even after repeated demand. Though the Complainant intimated the stop payment to the bank in the breach of terms by the Opposite Party. Upon the request of the Opposite Party that real and genuine parts would be supplied if funds were given. The Complainant lifted the request of stop payment. Later (Contd.......3) - 3 - intimation was also given to the bank to encash the amount in balance. The Opposite Party was given an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.8.2002. The key board in the quotation is of Samsung but supplied one is not Samsung. The Complainant is not in a position to run the Inter Net Cafe due to the latent defect in the system supplied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards the cost of system, accessories and the cost of furniture and installation charge. The furniture and fixture work was done by one Sathian to whom Rs.17,000/- was given by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not given Rs.2,000/- which was charged in the bill for the furniture and fixtures. The amount with regard to the furniture and fixture was settled as Rs.10,000/- by the Opposite Party. The act of the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practice and more over it is a deficiency in service, the article supplied were of inferior quality and defective. The request of the Complainant to change the articles and to cure the defects were not treated positively by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant of Rs.1,50,000/- or as an alternative of prayer to take back the items and to refund Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. It is admitted that the Opposite Party is the authorized dealer of Compaq computers in Wayanad District. The concern of computer Centre was started with the loan of Indian Overseas Bank with the assistances of Khadi Board. The Opposite Party was given 50% the amount in advance on 13.08.2002 from Indian Overseas Bank, Sulthan Bathery Branch by the way of DD. No. 325189978 and started cafe on 18.8.2002. The opposite Party denied the allegation that some of the systems were not working from the date of inauguration. The matter in dispute does not come within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum since the facts alleged can be decided by a civil court since it requires expert evidence and technical analysis. (Contd.......4) - 4 - The quotation was given by the Opposite Party dated 24.4.2002. Upon agreeing the terms of the quotation it was fixed between the parties and the terms of the quotation was such that 40% of the payment should be made at the time of order and the balance amount to be paid at the time of delivery. The total amount agreed was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The systems in inter net cafe was installed and Indian Overseas Bank had given a DD of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid upon satisfaction in the installation and working of the cafe. The quotation specified Compaq presario 6125 A1 computer and assembled 3 celeron Personal Computer's. The Compaq presario 6125 A1 was not available and the more advanced 6140 was given. The DVD drive not installed where as upon the request of the Complainant CD writer and extra 128 MB Ram was installed. These were installed as an additional benefit offered to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties installed a more advanced wireless mouse in compliment. Instead of installing Intel 810 Mother Board Vesta 810 mother board is installed due to the non availability of the other. The entire systems were installed complying with the absolute satisfaction of the Complainant. Three assembled Personal Computers were also given. There is a differences of Rs.5,000/- in each personal computers and the Opposite Party agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant towards the difference in price. An additional version is also filed by the Opposite Party. According to which the Complainant if sustained any loss it was only due to the carelessness and inefficiency of the complainant. The Complainant informed the bank to release the fund only because of the satisfaction of the systems installed. The Complainant had agreed to pay the balance amount Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2002. The Opposite Party had furnished a cheque of Rs.15,000/- dated 30.08.2002 to the Complainant on behalf of the price difference. The inspection of the Khadi Board was not completed before 30.08.2002. The payment was not done by the Complainant being the (Contd.......5) - 5 - inspection was not completed before 30.08.2002. Meanwhile the Complainant instigated a legal notices and in which nothing was stated about the cheque and the defects of the certain system. The only difference was that instead of INTEL 910 Mother Board Vesta 810 mother board was installed in three Personal Computers. As a response from the responsible dealer the Vesta 810 mother board are replaced by INTEL 815 mother board without charging additional amount. As a result the Complainant is not entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- the difference in price and the Complainant was asked to pay back the cheque given. Where as the Complainant promised the return of cheque after final settlement and in respect of which the Opposite Party instructed stop payment to the Bank. The Khadi Board had inspected the Cafe in three occasion and they were also convinced and satisfied with the works of the systems. The fully satisfied Complainant gave direction to Indian Overseas Bank to issue the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party and a DD of Rs.1,00,000/- was given accordingly. The Complainant motivated with interest to exhort money sent the cheque for collection and tried to cheat the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party had no legally enforceable debt to the Complainant and hence the honouring of the cheque was stopped upon instruction. The Opposite Party rendered service to the Complainant complying with the terms of quotation. The cheque dated 30.08.2002 was presented for collection, but though sufficient amount was there in the account the cheque presented was dishonoured upon instruction of the Opposite Party and which is followed by a Criminal Case under section 138 against the Opposite Party in Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Sulthan Bathery numbered C.C. 353/02. The claim of the Complainant that the cheque of Rs.15,000/- was given towards the cost of the furniture which was to be provided by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had provided the furniture before 18.08.2002 itself and the cheque given by the Opposite Party was towards (Contd.........6) - 6 - the price difference of mother board which were already replaced. The systems installed had no defect as claimed by the Complainant. The Criminal Case instigated against the Opposite Party is only to tarnish the goodwill and reputation of the Opposite Party. It is prayed that the complaint is inherent with false and baseless reasons and it is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party. The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?. 2.Relief and cost. Point No.1: The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A15 are marked on the side of the Complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 to B9 are marked. As an undertaking by the Opposite Party which state we are also undertakes the annual maintenance contract (AMC) and component level servicing of computer and peripherals. Ext.A4 is the quotation given to the Complainant. The items in quotation along with accessories are as such. One Compaq presarion 6125 A1 with one year on site comprehensive warranty and the price of that computer is 58500. The celeron personal computer's of 3 year warranty of Intel Celeron is offered in the quotation. The Computer Cafe was started as a means to eke out the day today life of the Complainant. Though it is offered in quotation that the service will be offered to the system of the Complainant for a period as per the terms. According to the Opposite Party the non availability of Intel 810 mother board at the time of installation was the reason for the non supply of the same. On the other hand Intel 815 mother board was supplied. The 2nd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. In the (Contd........7) - 7 - oral testimony of the 2nd Opposite Party it is stated that even at the time of installation it was known to him that the Intel 810 mother board was not in their possession and the terms were agreed by the Opposite Party knowing this situation. Ext. C1 and C2 are the Commissions Report . Ext. C1 is the report set aside and Ext.C2 is the report filed by an expert. The inspection was held after the period of warranty but the disputes started from the very beginning onwards. According to Ext.C2 there is a considerable difference in the items supplied other than those which were assured in quotation. The Software and CD's were not provided with license. The systems were not working and more over the equipments installed were not in such a position to run the Computer Cafe. The contention of the Opposite Party that a cheque of Rs.15,000/- was issued to the Complainant towards the difference of price in the offered items and that of the mother board in quotation which were supplied is beyond reasons. There is nothing as a piece of evidence to show the actual price of the mother board which was supplied by Opposite Party. Ext.C2 contains in detail of 22 points which are to be reported on verifications. The Opposite Party filed objection to the Commission Report. The Opposite Party has not produced any documents to show that the licensed Software was supplied to the Complainant. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party that due to the non functional of the Internet Cafe loss can be incured upon the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party Intel 815 mother board is bit more advanced variety than that of Intel 815 mother board. It is incongruous while Rs.15,000/- given to the Complainant though advanced and costly items were supplied. The Complainant anticipated the effective operation of the Computer Cafe in co-operation of the Opposite Party. In order to pave the way for it the letter was sent by the Complainant to the bank authority for the release of the 2nd installments. Ext.A7 is letter requesting the Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Sulthan Bathery that a DD of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be released to the Opposite Party the letter was dated on 19.9.2002. It would have been done upon the assurance given by the (Contd.......8) 8 - Opposite Party as avered in Ext.A7. The Opposite Party did not cop up with the quotation in supplying the items. The Complainant could not operate the Cafe from the very beginning onwards. From the above inferences it is to be held that there is unfair trade practise and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant. Point No.2: It is admitted that the Opposite Party received DD of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Complainant. The Complainant availed the loan in order to start the Inter Net Cafe. The item supplied were not good enough and the functions of it were not facilitated by the service rendered. The Complainant has to meet the other expenses along with interest of the loan amount paid by the bank. The dispute is with regard to the supply of computer and its accessories. The Opposite Parties have to replace the article supplied as per the terms and conditions in the quotation. If the Opposite Party is not in a position not to supply the items in quotation because of the non availability of the particular brand of the items Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount received from the Complainant is to be refunded taking back the item supplied. The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation and cost. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to replace the computer and the accessories to the terms and conditions of the quotation. If the Opposite Parties find it difficult to procure the items in the quotations because of non availability of the branded same, the Opposite Party can take back the Computer and other item upon refunding Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to the Complainant The Complainant is also entitled (Contd.......9) - 9 - for the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) within one month from the date of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of April 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1. Ajaykumar. Complainant. PW2. Sathyan. Carpenter. PW3. Sreejith. Guest Lecturer. CW1. Priyesh. Guest Lecturer, Poli technic Meppadi. Witnesses for the Opposite Parties: OPW1. Jose Saline Thomas Business. Exhibits for the Complainant: A1. Malayala Mnorama News Paper dt:16.07.2008. A2. Brochure. A3. Copy of the letter dt:24.04.2002. A4. Copy of the Quotation. (Contd.......10) - 10 - A5 series (4 in numbers) Invoice. A5(a ) series (4 in numbers) Invoice. A6. Copy of the Letter. dt:26.07.2002. A7. Copy of the Letter. dt:19.09.2002. A7(a) Copy of the Letter. dt:19.9.2002. A8. Copy of the e-mail A9. Reply of the e-mail. A10. Copy of the Letter. dt:25.07.2002. A11 Series ( 2 in numbers) Delivery Challan. dt:12.08.2002. A12. Lawyer Notice. dt:03.10.2002. A13. Copy of the Letter. A14. Copy of the Receipt. dt:17.08.2002. A15. Copy of the Cheque dt:30.08.2002. A16. Copy of the Receipt. dt:17.08.2002. A17. Statement. dt:11.05.2005. C1. Commission Report. dt:12.08.2003. C1(a) Quotation. C1(b). e-mail. C1(c). Brochure. C1(d) Copy of e-mai. C1(c). Details of Login infomac. C2. Commission Report. dt:15.03.2004. C2(a). Letter. dt:06.05.2004. Exhibits for the Opposite Parties: B1. Copy of the complaint. dt:08.11.2002. B2. Copy of the Lawyer Notice. dt:07.09.2002. B3. Invoice Cum Delivery Challan dt:07.08.2002. B4. Invoice Cum Delivery Challan. dt:07.08.2002 (Contd.......11) 11 - B5. Copy of the Lawyer Notice. dt:16.10.2002. B6. Certified copy of Judgment dt:28.04.2005. (Calender Case No.353/2002) B7. Copy of the Letter. B8. Intimation given to 2nd Opposite Party dt:24.04.2004. B9. Intimation given to 3rd Opposite Party dt:24.04.2004. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The gist of the complaint is as follows. The Complainant started an Internet Cafe as a source of his livelihood. The quotation WAS invited for the purchase of computer and other required equipments. the Opposite Party has given quotation as such that they are the authorized dealer of Compaq (Contd........ 2) 2 - Computer. The entire system was financed by the Overseas Bank with the assistance from Kerala Khadi Village Industries. The Complainant started the Cafe as the promotion of Panchayath Level Cyber Net Work and it was the first concern of the said nature in Wayanad. The Opposite Party supplied the equipments on 12.8.2002 and Cafe was inaugurated on 18.8.2002. The Opposite Party was given D.D for Rs.1,00,000/- from Indian Overseas Bank Sulthan Bathery Branch on 13.8.2002. On the very same day of the inauguration some of the systems installed by the Opposite Party were not working. When it was informed by the Complainant, the Opposite Party assured that the defect will be rectified on the next day itself. The items detailed in the quotation were not in accordance with the item supplied. Differences were noted by the Complainant in 3 Computers the seal 'Intel' is not seen. Some of the items were not new instead they were used one. The mother board of scanner was also used one. In the brochure given to the Complainant the specification was 6125 as shown in the quotation. But the supplied one was 6140. The concern of the Complainant was inaugurated on 18.8.2002. The advance payment to the Opposite Party already done and the dispute was talked upon intimation by the Complainant. The accessories which were to be supplied free of cost were charged by the Opposite Party. The entire unit of Celeron Personal Computer was the quotation of the Opposite Party. Except the processor the other equipments are not of Intel Company. The scanner mentioned in quotation was that of H.P products but the items supplied is different the UPS supplied was not working on the date of inauguration. There is no picture quality and speed to the system supplied and installed by the Opposite Party. No warranty was given for the items supplied and the warranty card was also not given even after repeated demand. Though the Complainant intimated the stop payment to the bank in the breach of terms by the Opposite Party. Upon the request of the Opposite Party that real and genuine parts would be supplied if funds were given. The Complainant lifted the request of stop payment. Later (Contd.......3) - 3 - intimation was also given to the bank to encash the amount in balance. The Opposite Party was given an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.8.2002. The key board in the quotation is of Samsung but supplied one is not Samsung. The Complainant is not in a position to run the Inter Net Cafe due to the latent defect in the system supplied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards the cost of system, accessories and the cost of furniture and installation charge. The furniture and fixture work was done by one Sathian to whom Rs.17,000/- was given by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not given Rs.2,000/- which was charged in the bill for the furniture and fixtures. The amount with regard to the furniture and fixture was settled as Rs.10,000/- by the Opposite Party. The act of the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practice and more over it is a deficiency in service, the article supplied were of inferior quality and defective. The request of the Complainant to change the articles and to cure the defects were not treated positively by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the Complainant of Rs.1,50,000/- or as an alternative of prayer to take back the items and to refund Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. It is admitted that the Opposite Party is the authorized dealer of Compaq computers in Wayanad District. The concern of computer Centre was started with the loan of Indian Overseas Bank with the assistances of Khadi Board. The Opposite Party was given 50% the amount in advance on 13.08.2002 from Indian Overseas Bank, Sulthan Bathery Branch by the way of DD. No. 325189978 and started cafe on 18.8.2002. The opposite Party denied the allegation that some of the systems were not working from the date of inauguration. The matter in dispute does not come within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum since the facts alleged can be decided by a civil court since it requires expert evidence and technical analysis. (Contd.......4) - 4 - The quotation was given by the Opposite Party dated 24.4.2002. Upon agreeing the terms of the quotation it was fixed between the parties and the terms of the quotation was such that 40% of the payment should be made at the time of order and the balance amount to be paid at the time of delivery. The total amount agreed was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The systems in inter net cafe was installed and Indian Overseas Bank had given a DD of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid upon satisfaction in the installation and working of the cafe. The quotation specified Compaq presario 6125 A1 computer and assembled 3 celeron Personal Computer's. The Compaq presario 6125 A1 was not available and the more advanced 6140 was given. The DVD drive not installed where as upon the request of the Complainant CD writer and extra 128 MB Ram was installed. These were installed as an additional benefit offered to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties installed a more advanced wireless mouse in compliment. Instead of installing Intel 810 Mother Board Vesta 810 mother board is installed due to the non availability of the other. The entire systems were installed complying with the absolute satisfaction of the Complainant. Three assembled Personal Computers were also given. There is a differences of Rs.5,000/- in each personal computers and the Opposite Party agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant towards the difference in price. An additional version is also filed by the Opposite Party. According to which the Complainant if sustained any loss it was only due to the carelessness and inefficiency of the complainant. The Complainant informed the bank to release the fund only because of the satisfaction of the systems installed. The Complainant had agreed to pay the balance amount Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2002. The Opposite Party had furnished a cheque of Rs.15,000/- dated 30.08.2002 to the Complainant on behalf of the price difference. The inspection of the Khadi Board was not completed before 30.08.2002. The payment was not done by the Complainant being the (Contd.......5) - 5 - inspection was not completed before 30.08.2002. Meanwhile the Complainant instigated a legal notices and in which nothing was stated about the cheque and the defects of the certain system. The only difference was that instead of INTEL 910 Mother Board Vesta 810 mother board was installed in three Personal Computers. As a response from the responsible dealer the Vesta 810 mother board are replaced by INTEL 815 mother board without charging additional amount. As a result the Complainant is not entitled to receive Rs.15,000/- the difference in price and the Complainant was asked to pay back the cheque given. Where as the Complainant promised the return of cheque after final settlement and in respect of which the Opposite Party instructed stop payment to the Bank. The Khadi Board had inspected the Cafe in three occasion and they were also convinced and satisfied with the works of the systems. The fully satisfied Complainant gave direction to Indian Overseas Bank to issue the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Opposite Party and a DD of Rs.1,00,000/- was given accordingly. The Complainant motivated with interest to exhort money sent the cheque for collection and tried to cheat the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party had no legally enforceable debt to the Complainant and hence the honouring of the cheque was stopped upon instruction. The Opposite Party rendered service to the Complainant complying with the terms of quotation. The cheque dated 30.08.2002 was presented for collection, but though sufficient amount was there in the account the cheque presented was dishonoured upon instruction of the Opposite Party and which is followed by a Criminal Case under section 138 against the Opposite Party in Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Sulthan Bathery numbered C.C. 353/02. The claim of the Complainant that the cheque of Rs.15,000/- was given towards the cost of the furniture which was to be provided by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had provided the furniture before 18.08.2002 itself and the cheque given by the Opposite Party was towards (Contd.........6) - 6 - the price difference of mother board which were already replaced. The systems installed had no defect as claimed by the Complainant. The Criminal Case instigated against the Opposite Party is only to tarnish the goodwill and reputation of the Opposite Party. It is prayed that the complaint is inherent with false and baseless reasons and it is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Party. The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?. 2.Relief and cost. Point No.1: The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A15 are marked on the side of the Complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 to B9 are marked. As an undertaking by the Opposite Party which state we are also undertakes the annual maintenance contract (AMC) and component level servicing of computer and peripherals. Ext.A4 is the quotation given to the Complainant. The items in quotation along with accessories are as such. One Compaq presarion 6125 A1 with one year on site comprehensive warranty and the price of that computer is 58500. The celeron personal computer's of 3 year warranty of Intel Celeron is offered in the quotation. The Computer Cafe was started as a means to eke out the day today life of the Complainant. Though it is offered in quotation that the service will be offered to the system of the Complainant for a period as per the terms. According to the Opposite Party the non availability of Intel 810 mother board at the time of installation was the reason for the non supply of the same. On the other hand Intel 815 mother board was supplied. The 2nd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. In the (Contd........7) - 7 - oral testimony of the 2nd Opposite Party it is stated that even at the time of installation it was known to him that the Intel 810 mother board was not in their possession and the terms were agreed by the Opposite Party knowing this situation. Ext. C1 and C2 are the Commissions Report . Ext. C1 is the report set aside and Ext.C2 is the report filed by an expert. The inspection was held after the period of warranty but the disputes started from the very beginning onwards. According to Ext.C2 there is a considerable difference in the items supplied other than those which were assured in quotation. The Software and CD's were not provided with license. The systems were not working and more over the equipments installed were not in such a position to run the Computer Cafe. The contention of the Opposite Party that a cheque of Rs.15,000/- was issued to the Complainant towards the difference of price in the offered items and that of the mother board in quotation which were supplied is beyond reasons. There is nothing as a piece of evidence to show the actual price of the mother board which was supplied by Opposite Party. Ext.C2 contains in detail of 22 points which are to be reported on verifications. The Opposite Party filed objection to the Commission Report. The Opposite Party has not produced any documents to show that the licensed Software was supplied to the Complainant. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party that due to the non functional of the Internet Cafe loss can be incured upon the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party Intel 815 mother board is bit more advanced variety than that of Intel 815 mother board. It is incongruous while Rs.15,000/- given to the Complainant though advanced and costly items were supplied. The Complainant anticipated the effective operation of the Computer Cafe in co-operation of the Opposite Party. In order to pave the way for it the letter was sent by the Complainant to the bank authority for the release of the 2nd installments. Ext.A7 is letter requesting the Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Sulthan Bathery that a DD of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be released to the Opposite Party the letter was dated on 19.9.2002. It would have been done upon the assurance given by the (Contd.......8) 8 - Opposite Party as avered in Ext.A7. The Opposite Party did not cop up with the quotation in supplying the items. The Complainant could not operate the Cafe from the very beginning onwards. From the above inferences it is to be held that there is unfair trade practise and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant. Point No.2: It is admitted that the Opposite Party received DD of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Complainant. The Complainant availed the loan in order to start the Inter Net Cafe. The item supplied were not good enough and the functions of it were not facilitated by the service rendered. The Complainant has to meet the other expenses along with interest of the loan amount paid by the bank. The dispute is with regard to the supply of computer and its accessories. The Opposite Parties have to replace the article supplied as per the terms and conditions in the quotation. If the Opposite Party is not in a position not to supply the items in quotation because of the non availability of the particular brand of the items Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount received from the Complainant is to be refunded taking back the item supplied. The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation and cost. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to replace the computer and the accessories to the terms and conditions of the quotation. If the Opposite Parties find it difficult to procure the items in the quotations because of non availability of the branded same, the Opposite Party can take back the Computer and other item upon refunding Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) to the Complainant The Complainant is also entitled (Contd.......9) - 9 - for the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) within one month from the date of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of April 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1. Ajaykumar. Complainant. PW2. Sathyan. Carpenter. PW3. Sreejith. Guest Lecturer. CW1. Priyesh. Guest Lecturer, Poli technic Meppadi. Witnesses for the Opposite Parties: OPW1. Jose Saline Thomas Business. Exhibits for the Complainant: A1. Malayala Mnorama News Paper dt:16.07.2008. A2. Brochure. A3. Copy of the letter dt:24.04.2002. A4. Copy of the Quotation. (Contd.......10) - 10 - A5 series (4 in numbers) Invoice. A5(a ) series (4 in numbers) Invoice. A6. Copy of the Letter. dt:26.07.2002. A7. Copy of the Letter. dt:19.09.2002. A7(a) Copy of the Letter. dt:19.9.2002. A8. Copy of the e-mail A9. Reply of the e-mail. A10. Copy of the Letter. dt:25.07.2002. A11 Series ( 2 in numbers) Delivery Challan. dt:12.08.2002. A12. Lawyer Notice. dt:03.10.2002. A13. Copy of the Letter. A14. Copy of the Receipt. dt:17.08.2002. A15. Copy of the Cheque dt:30.08.2002. A16. Copy of the Receipt. dt:17.08.2002. A17. Statement. dt:11.05.2005. C1. Commission Report. dt:12.08.2003. C1(a) Quotation. C1(b). e-mail. C1(c). Brochure. C1(d) Copy of e-mai. C1(c). Details of Login infomac. C2. Commission Report. dt:15.03.2004. C2(a). Letter. dt:06.05.2004. Exhibits for the Opposite Parties: B1. Copy of the complaint. dt:08.11.2002. B2. Copy of the Lawyer Notice. dt:07.09.2002. B3. Invoice Cum Delivery Challan dt:07.08.2002. B4. Invoice Cum Delivery Challan. dt:07.08.2002 (Contd.......11) 11 - B5. Copy of the Lawyer Notice. dt:16.10.2002. B6. Certified copy of Judgment dt:28.04.2005. (Calender Case No.353/2002) B7. Copy of the Letter. B8. Intimation given to 2nd Opposite Party dt:24.04.2004. B9. Intimation given to 3rd Opposite Party dt:24.04.2004. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................SAJI MATHEW