Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

392/2008

M.P.Perumal - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Ansar Bhasa,KM Computer - Opp.Party(s)

S.Natarajan

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                                     Date of Complaint  : 08.09.2008

                                                                                     Date of Order        :06.08.2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,        :       PRESIDENT                     

                      TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                       :        MEMBER - I

                                                                  

C.C.No. 392 / 2008

THIS  THURSDAY  THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST  2015

 

Mr. M.P. Perumal,

No.18/16, S.M. Nagar,

Teynampet,

Chennai – 18.                                                   .. Complainant.

                                                          - Vs-

K. Ansar Basha, K.M. Computers, “Periya Plaza “, #4/25, Wallers Road, Chennai – 2.                                                    .. Opposite party.		.. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant                           :   Tr. S.Natarajan.     

For the opposite party               :   M/s. R.Abdul Mubeen & others.  

 

           Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay the cost of the defective secondhand laptop of Rs.11,750/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with cost of the  proceedings to the  complainant.

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

1.    The Case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

        The complainant had purchased a second hand used Laptop computer from the opposite party on 16.1.2008 and also paid a sum of Rs.11,750/-.   The complainant took the laptop after switching it on and it effective functioning / performance could not be ascertained immediately due to lack of software.  The complainant was given a guarantee of 3 months for this laptop by opposite party and assured service but never informed the details as to spares.   The complainant who had taken the laptop to his native found to his great shock that the laptop did not function when switched on after insertion of software.  The complainant  contacted the opposite party complained about the non-functioning of the laptop wherein opposite party promised to do the repairs and replacement of spares only on cost basis   and the police complaint was given in this regard in the  Police Station  on 11.4.2008. 

2.     The complainant has been saddled with a defective laptop which is still with opposite party which repair costs are absolutely high, is shocked by opposite party’s shoddy behavior contrary to assurances given at the time of purchase.    Accordingly the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 19.6.2008 called on the opposite party who received the notice on 24.6.2008 failed to reply or comply.    As such the act of the opposite party is amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and damages to the complainant.  As such the complainant has sought for cost of the defective secondhand laptop of Rs.11,750/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with cost of the  proceedings to the  complainant.  Hence the complaint. 

3.  Written version of   opposite party  is   as follows:-

        The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and on the facts of the case.   The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted herein.   It is true that the complainant had purchased a second hand used laptop computer on 16.1.2008 and paid a sum of Rs.11,750/-.  It is pertinent to note that at the time of delivery of the said second hand used laptop, the opposite party had clearly and explicitly informed to the complainant, at the time of its purchase, that warranty cannot be issued on such second hand used laptop and cautioned the complainant to handle it with due care and in a proper manner as it is an electronic item and had further stated that proper usage of the said second hand laptop will not cause any dysfunction whatsoever.   Due to the complainant’s inappropriate and careless handling of the said second hand used Laptop the complainant has brought the same to the opposite party and for necessary repairs and the opposite party had informed the complainant that since the Mother-board of the said second hand used laptop is totally burnt due to the complainant’s careless and haphazard handling, the same has to be replaced to make it use worthy.  The opposite party further states that the complainant had purchased the second hand used laptop only after having been fully satisfied of its satisfactory working condition of the said Laptop.  Thus, it is very clear that the complainant had caused misapplication and mishandling of the said second hand used Laptop and only his improper and casual way of handling has caused the Mother-board of the said second hand used Laptop to dysfunction.  The  opposite party further states that nevertheless the opposite party is ready and willing to replace the Mother board of the said laptop on payment of Rs.2500/- by the complainant or else the complainant is at liberty to take back the said laptop for his own further course of action.  The entire complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prays to dismiss the complaint.  

4.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite party has not filed his proof affidavit and no document was marked on the side of the opposite party.

5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

6. POINTS 1 & 2 :

Perused the complaint, complainant’s proof affidavit, documents  Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, written version filed by the opposite party,  written arguments of both complainant and the opposite party and considered the both sides arguments. 

7.     Admittedly the complainant purchased a second hand lap top from the opposite party on 16.1.2008 for a sum of Rs.11,750/-.  The complainant contents that the lap top did not function when switched on after instruction of software.   The opposite party also orally assured three months warranty.  When the complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the defect the opposite party demanded excessive rate for spares more than the actual cost of spares.  Hence the complainant lodged police complaint on 11.4.2008 and also issued legal notice dated  19.6.2008  which was received by the opposite party but there is no reply.   Hence the complainant filed the above complaint for refund of cost of the defective second hand lap top along with interest and compensation.   

8.     It is not disputed by the opposite party in their written version that the second hand lap top was purchased from him on 16.1.2008 for a sum of Rs.11,750/- and  brought to them as not functioning.   But the contention of the opposite party is that since it is the second hand lap top and there is no warranty for it and they informed the complainant that the mother board is totally burnt due to the carelessness and haphazard handling and the mother board has to be replaced on payment of cost of Rs.2500/- but the complainant refused to pay the said cost, even now they are ready to replace the mother board on payment of Rs.2500/-.     

9.     Moreover the complainant admitted in his police complaint Ex.A2 that he approached the opposite party on 12.3.2008 to rectify the defect. Further the opposite party states that he advised the complainant to handle with care since there is no warranty and only after having been fully satisfied of the working condition the complainant took the lap top, hence the complainant has caused mis-application and mis-handling of the lap top causing the mother board to dys function. Hence the contention of the opposite party that complainant approached him at a belated stage is acceptable.  

10.  Whereas the contention of the complainant that the opposite party gave three months warranty orally is not acceptable.   

11.    Though the opposite party has not filed proof affidavit on their side their demand of payment of Rs.2500/- to replace the mother board  is not denied by the complainant in his proof affidavit.     But the contention of the opposite party that he gave reply to the legal notice of the complainant is not proved through evidence.

12.    Even though the opposite party is willing and ready to replace the mother board on payment of Rs.2500/- it is clear that the complainant neither paid the said amount nor taken the lap top from the opposite party.     As such it shows the fault on the part of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.    

13.    Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the complaint mentioned lap top is a second hand one and there is no warranty for the same and as such the opposite party required the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to replace the mother board.  But the complainant had not approached him to rectify the defects.   Hence  there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and as such the relief sought for by the complainant for repayment  of the cost of the lap top and compensation is unsustainable and not acceptable.

14.  However the opposite party may consider and replace the mother board of the complaint mentioned lap top on payment of Rs.2500/- by the complainant if he approaches him and do the needful.    

15.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances the parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.    

        Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^th    day of August  2015.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-           -        - Copy of visiting card.

Ex.A2- 11.4.2008      - Copy of police complaint.

Ex.A3- 19.6.2008      - Copy of legal notice with courier receipt.

Opposite party’s side documents: -    .. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.