KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTS REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM

APPEAL 183/2006

JUDGMENT DATED:30.1.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER

M/s GMT Systems,                                   :APPELLANT

58/2262, Basin Road,

Ernakulam,

Cochin-682 031 represented buy its partner

(By Adv.Joseph Markos)

          Vs.

Mr.K.D.Joseph,                                           : RESPONDENT

90/1300, “Deepthy”, SDPY Road,

Palluruthy,

Cochin- 682 006.

JUDGMENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER

            This appeal is preferred against the order-dated 31.8.05 of CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.88/05.  The complaint was preferred by the respondent herein as the complainant against the appellant as opposite party whereby the Forum directed the opposite party to repair the PC free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Aggrieved by this direction the opposite party filed the present appeal.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a PC and other related accessories from the opposite party on 8.3.2002 for an amount of Rs.51500/- and the same was installed on 9.3.2002.  But the system showed faulty symptoms immediately after three days from the date of installation and on 20.3.2002, functional error was found and 256 MB memory was taken for repair.  Again on 4.4.02, 3.7.02 and on 17.7.02, the system showed some faulty symptoms.  Subsequently the keyboard became faulty and the same was replaced at the expense of the complainant. But all major problems were repeated.  Though the Mainboard was installed after repair on 13.11.2004 the system became again faulty on 30.11.2004.  128MB RAM, mother board and PII 1000 MHZ processor were taken for servicing which were not received back so far after repairs.  The opposite party had not taken any steps to get it repaired.  Hence alleging deficiency in service he filed the complaint before the Forum claiming for replacement of PC.

          3. The opposite party filed version and contended that the complaint is barred by limitation.  The purchase was admitted by the opposite party and contended that the said system and accessories were provided with replacing/service warranty for 1 year from the date of invoice and as per the oral complaint made by the complainant regarding the operational errors with the 256 MB RAM,  the same was replaced with a brand new one, free of cost and the minor display problem reported on 3.7.2002 was rectified on the same day at free of charge.  They further contended that after 7.3.03 there was no warranty for the PC and its accessories and there was no Annual Maintenance Contract with the opposite party for the system and its accessories.   On 11.4.03 and on 5.5.03 the complainant had requested the opposite party to repair the motherboard due to some operational errors, the service Engineer of the opposite party examined the system and found that the motherboard was showing errors due to the improper usage of the PC and mishandling of the motherboard.  All services and replacing were done free of cost during the warranty period and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party.  There was no representation for the respondent/complainant.  The learned counsel for the appellant argued for the position that the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation.  According to the appellant the cause of action arose from the date on which the alleged complaint was detected by the complainant, that is on 12.3.2002, so the complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years from 12.3.02.  But here the complaint was filed only in February 2005.  He further submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the goods in question had any manufacturing defects and if at all there were any no expert evidence has been adduced to prove the same.  It is also submitted that the warranty for the PC was expired on 7.3.03 and there is no annual maintenance contract between the parties.  The alleged damage caused to the system was due to improper use by the operator and mishandling of the body parts by other technicians of the complainant.  According to the appellant the motherboard, RAM and the processor are beyond repairs and cannot be replaced with a new one as the same are out dated and are now not available in the market.

          5. The respondent has relied upon the service report of the personal computer showing that on many occasions the system showed defects and according to him those defects were not rectified to his full satisfaction.

          6. On a perusal of records it is noted that the system showed defects from 12.3.02 onwards and as per Ext.24 RAM, motherboard and processor are still lying with the appellant for repairs.  Appellant also admits that the defects pointed out in the aforesaid parts of the computer are beyond repair and cannot be replaced with new one as these parts are not available now in the market.  The service call reports would show that on many occasions certain parts of personal computer were taken by the opposite party for rectifying the defects and the system developed defects right from the very beginning.

          7. It is seen from the documents produced by the complainant that the defects in the system were attended by the opposite party in the year 2003 and 2004.  In view of the above facts I have no hesitation in holding that the cause of action alleged in this complaint is a continuing one.  As problems persisted and repairs were done continuously, the limitation period for filing the complaint cannot be computed from 12.3.02 as alleged by the opposite party.  As already stated the opposite parties replaced certain parts and rendered service in removing certain defects even in the year 2004.  So the present complaint filed in the year 2005 cannot be said to be barred by limitation.  The contention raised by the opposite party in this regard cannot be sustained.  Hence it is  held that the complaint is not barred by limitation.

8. It would therefore be clear that the personal computer was mal-functioning from the very beginning and the complainant made complaint about it from 12.3.2002 onwards.  However the same could not be rectified properly by the opposite party.  The system was purchased in the year 2002 and the complainant had been using the system for a considerable period, though the same was not getting trouble free service.  Now the vital   parts of the said personal computer are with the appellant/opposite party for repairs and according to the appellant those are beyond repairs.  The system was found defective from the 3^rd day of its installation and no doubt that the complainant had suffered inconvenience and hardships on account of this.

          9.In the said circumstances it is just and proper to direct the opposite parties to pay a reasonable amount as compensation to the complainant as replacing and repairs are impossible at this stage.  Moreover the items entrusted for repairs are with the opposite party also.  In the said circumstance a sum of Rs.15000/- will be just and proper to be awarded as compensation.

          In the result the order of the Forum is modified whereby the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- by way of compensation to the complainant.  The amount shall be paid within 2 months from the date of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs.

          Appeal disposed of accordingly.

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN          : MEMBER

ps