BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 64/2012 Filed on 25.02.2012
Dated: 15.01.2014
Complainants:
- P. Saseendran, Krishna Communications, CPT Junction, Vattiyoorkavu.
Additional complainant:
- Veena. S, Sreevilas, Kodunganoor.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Karma Infosys, Palamootil Devi, T.C 4/480, ATRRA-114, Rangoon Lane, Kowdiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Pournami Devan. D.N)
This C.C having been heard on 06.12.2013, the Forum on 15.01.2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI: MEMBER
The facts of the case of the complainant are that he is running a computer centre at CPT Junction, Vattiyoorkavu and the main job work undertaken is DTP and also running cyber cafe. The opposite party is a computer service centre and on 03.07.2011 they formatted 3 computers which are out of order. One of the systems was taken away by the service person for detailed examination and he convinced the complainant that it will cost only Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- for servicing that system. But after few days on enquiry he told that it will cost Rs. 900/- for service, then the complainant asked him to return the system but the opposite party avoided him. After this the opposite party visited the complainant’s computer centre for repairing other system, but they never returned the system which was taken by them for repair. So after six months the complainant made a complaint before the police, but the opposite party did not come till the complainant returned. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for loss incurred in the absence of the computer system at Rs. 1,200/- monthly and with system.
The opposite party filed version stating that the complainant will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party is running the computer service centre and three computers belonging to the complainant have been serviced by the opposite party agreeing the terms and conditions regarding payment of service. But one among the three was out of order for the reason that the configuration was out of date and not suitable for DTP works and internet browsing. This was informed to the complainant and 20 GB HDD is not available in the market and if any used HDD is available in future the opposite party is ready to replace the same without delay. As the computer was not in a working condition, the complainant persuaded the opposite party to take the computer to their service centre until the opposite party is getting the required configuration. The complainant was also aware of the approximate cost for installing the defaulted configuration at that time and the conditions regarding cost was also agreed by the complainant. But the complainant was not ready to wait till the availability of configuration and disturbed the opposite party. Then the opposite party asked the complainant to come their office and asked him to get the computer back after giving the service charge of other two computers and the expense incurred in getting the faulted computer to their office. Then the complainant filed a complaint before the Peroorkada police station and a mediation talk was conducted and the opposite party agreed to give the system back as such a configuration was not available till that date. But the complainant was not ready for getting back the computer as such and he insisted for the loss incurred in keeping the computer in opposite party’s office. But the computer was not in a working mode, the opposite party was not ready for giving the compensation. The opposite party was ready to surrender the computer before this Forum. So there is no deficiency of service on the side of this opposite party and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
Complainant filed affidavit and produced 3 documents and are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. 1st complainant was cross examined by the opposite party and the 2nd complainant was impleaded after that. Opposite party neither filed affidavit nor any documents.
Issues arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation as sought for?
Issues (i) & (ii):- The complaint is with regard to a computer given to the opposite party computer service centre. The case of the complainant is that the system was not repaired by the opposite party in time and also not returned. So the complainant filed a complaint before the Peroorkada police station and that was marked as Ext. P3. From Ext. P3 it is seen that both the parties appeared before the police and the opposite party was ready to repair the system if repair charges are given and if the complainant is not agreeable for that they are ready to give back the system. If the complainant is not interested for the above negotiation he was advised to approach this Forum and he approached this Forum which means he is not amenable to any settlement. But the complainant did not fully reveal the facts occurred before the police station. It is clear that the complainant got an opportunity to get back his system earlier, but he did not turn out to solve the problem but straight away approached this Forum. The complainant did not produce any bill or warranty card to show the price and purchasing date of the computer. He admits at the time of cross examination that he has no technical knowledge regarding the computer. He also added that 3 out of 4 computers were repaired by the opposite party, the main complaint of the disputed system was that the display was slow and it is taken for correcting the same with his permission. While cross examination complainant also admits that he contacted the opposite party for servicing another computer system and the opposite party did the same. So it is clear that the disputed system was not in a working condition and it takes time to cure that defect as the complainant himself admits that the opposite party serviced all other systems in time. Even though both the parties did not take any expert opinion regarding the defect of the computer, we have to take a view that the trouble is not minor. The complainant has no case that it occurred during warranty period and he also got an opportunity to take back the system from the opposite party in 2012 itself when he complained before the police station. The complainant did not prove the loss occurred to him by not working the system. So the case of loss did not stand. From the facts and circumstance we direct the opposite party to return the system.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part by directing the opposite party to return the system within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, on this the 15th day of January 2014.
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 64/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Saseendran. P
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of service report issued by Karma Infosys dated 03.07.2011.
P2 - Copy of service report issued by Karma Infosys dated 23.07.2011.
P3 - Copy of letter dated 22.10.2012 issued by Sub Inspector of Police,
Peroorkada to complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
