By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            The complainant who was a student attracted by the advertisement of opposite party, approached opposite party to buy a computer for his studies. On 17-5-06 the complainant purchased a computer from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.18000/-. When the complainant started using the computer an odd sound was heard from within the computer. Complainant informed the opposite party of the sound. Opposite party assured the complainant that the sound will automatically stopped after using for one month. As the odd sound did not stop even after one month the complainant again informed the opposite party. Opposite party assured to send their engineer to rectify the defect. But the opposite party did not attend the complainant’s computer for a long period. Later on a person from the opposite party institution inspected the complainant’s computer and certain repair works were done. Within two days the same odd sound could be heard from the computer. Complainant again informed the opposite party. Even through the fan inside the computer was replaced by the opposite party the huge sound from the computer continued. Complainant had informed the opposite party and requested to rectify the defect of the computer. Opposite party did not attend the complaints of the complainant. The computer was defective within one month of purchase. Complainant had several times requested opposite party to rectify the defects. Opposite party did not respond in a proper way. The defects in the computer were not rectified. The complainant could not use the computer because of the defects. The complainant being a student who had bought the computer for his studies could not use the computer because of the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence this petition is filed for getting back Rs.18000/- the cost of the computer along with compensation for the mental agony the complainant had to suffer.

 

            Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party is not dealing in Micro soft computer as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party   is collecting peripherals from the manufacturers and selling the same. The opposite party had sold 10 items of such peripherals to the complainant on 17-5-06 as per the invoice No.3115 and delivery note 3039 of opposite party. Opposite party has not sold any computer to the complainant,. Opposite party had only assembled the computer as per the instructions of the complainant. The sound coming out of the computer was the sound of the fan working within the computer. Opposite party has collected the parts from several other companies and sold to the complainant. Opposite party is not responsible if any defects occurred to the peripherals. There is no service contract between the opposite party and the complainant. Opposite party has not sold any computer to the complainant, they have sold only accessories. There was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

 

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition?

 

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. RW1 was examined on opposite party’s side. No documents were marked on the side of opposite party.  

 

            The case of the complainant is that he purchased a computer from the opposite party on 17-5-06 for an amount of Rs.18000/-. According to the complainant an odd noise emanates from the CPU while using it. This defect was intimated to the opposite party. The opposite party failed to rectify the defects even after repeated request. Complainant alleges the act of opposite party to be negligent and deficient in service. Opposite party has taken the contention that they have not sold a computer to the complainant. According to the opposite party they have only sold the peripherals opposite party has also raised the issue of non jointer of necessary parties because the manufacturers of the peripherals are not made parties in this case. Ext.A1 document reveals that the complainant had purchased 20 items of peripherals of the computer from the opposite party. Opposite party has admitted in the version that they have assisted the complainant to assemble the computer. In this case complainant has raised a definite complaint that  an odd sound comes out from the CPU while the computer is in use. The opposite party has sold the peripherals and they themselves have assembled the computer. It is for the opposite party to assemble the computer in such a way as for the computer to work in proper way. Complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect. For this reason the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the parts of the computer in this petition. The complainant has only asked the opposite party to assemble the computer in proper way so that he can use the computer for his studies. This matter was referred to the adalath and opposite party was directed to rectify the defects of the computer. Opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Hence the matter was not settled. As the computer showed the defects from the beginning which was informed to the opposite party and according to both the complainant and opposite party the computer was inspected by the opposite party’s engineers and tried to rectify the defects, it did not become defect free, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back an amount of Rs.18000/- which he had expended for buying the peripherals and assembling the computer.

 

 

 

            In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.18000/- and a compensation of rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order. Opposite party can take back the computer after paying the amount.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 22nd day of February 2010.

 

 

                        Sd/- PRESIDENT                    Sd/- MEMBER                        Sd/- MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

 

A1. Credit bill dt. 17-5-06.

A2. Photocopy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 15-5-07.

A3. Reply notice dt. 23-5-07.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Fasil (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1. Joji Antony, Proprietor of O.P.

 

                                                                        Sd/- President

                        // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.