BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   HYDERABAD.

FA  906 of 2012 against CC  981/2011, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad

Between:

Surana Computers

Rep. by its Proprietor

Shop No. 91, Cellar

Chenoy Trade Centre

Parklane, Secunderabad-3.                         ***                         Appellant/

And

K.

S/o. K.

Auto Driver,

Ayyappa Colony

Opp. GSI Nagole, Hyderabad-68.                                ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant

Counsel for   Appellant :               M/s.

Counsel for   Respondent :           M/s.  S. C. 

CORAM:

                              SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

                                S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF   TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Smt. M.

***

1)                Aggrieved by the order in   CC No. 981/2011 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad the Opposite Party preferred this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2)                The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased an assembled computer from the Op on 20.6.2008 for an amount of  developed a problem  in the  mother board and he handed it over to Kaizen Service Centre which returned the mother board to him after 20 days saying that the problem will not arise.  But again after 2 days the problem arose  five to six times and the same was repaired   by charging   The complainant submits that when this problem arose time,   again  he sought for replacement of  the  mother board but there was no response and therefore he approached the Consumer Information Centre and filed a complaint No. 309/2009 but the Op did not appear before the Consumer Information Centre.  Hence this complaint  direction to  the Op  for  refund  of   

3)                The appellant/Op was called absent before the Dist. Forum and did not choose to contest the matter.

4)                The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Ex. A1 to A8 and the pleadings put forward allowed the complaint directing the   opposite party to refund

5)                Heard the respondent party in person and the counsel appearing for the appellant/Op.

6)                Learned counsel for the appellant contended that while it is true that the complainant purchased a computer on 20.6.2008, the warranty is only for  year, and when the mother board of the computer was repaired on 16.10.2009 the warranty period was already over.   The appellant was willing to get the motherboard replaced as it is outside the warranty period they asked the complainant to bear the cost of it which he refused.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service on its behalf. 

7)                During the course of arguments the appellant also submitted that they replaced the computer on 7.6.2011 but the complainant has not even returned the old computer and that this complaint is with regard to alleged defects of the old computer.  The complainant submits that the Op never replaced the computer  and that  Ex. A1 shows that the complainant  has purchased  the computer on 20.6.2008 for an amount of     It  the complainant’s case that the mother board got spoiled and the same problem was repeating and that he had to pay    Ex. A3 is    The complainant denies that he has received the replacement but only submits that the mother board was repaired but once again problem arose.  He submits that he does not know English language and he was not aware as to what the Op has written on Ex. A5.    Ex. A7 is the complaint  

8)                It is pertinent to note that the Op did not appear before the Dist. Forum nor contest the matter.    There is no documentary evidence to establish that the Op had replaced the old computer with a new one except Ex. A5 which the complainant states that it does not pertain to replacement of old computer but it only states that the parts that are to be replaced.    We also observe from the record that the Op did not appear before the Consumer Information Centre, and has come up with this plea at this belated stage. 

9)                 While we observe that there is deficiency in service on the part of Op in supplying a computer with  defective mother board, at the same time, we also take into consideration that the computer was purchased in the year 2008 and was taken to the service centre in the year 2010 which evidences that the complainant has used the computer for two years for which a depreciation of 20% could be deducted in the interest of justice.   

10)              In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the Dist. Forum is modified and the Op is directed to take back the old computer and refund   22,680/-  together with compensation of     The parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.   

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDING MEMBER 

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

25/03/2013

*

UP LOAD – O.K.