KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.806/06 JUDGMENT DATED : 29.01.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER 1. The Managing Director, Benz computers, Unit of Benz Automobiles Ltd, at present known as Focuz Corporation (P) Ltd. Union Shopping Complex, South Bazar, Kannur-2. : APPELLANTS 2. The Manager, M/s.Benz Computers (at present known as Focuz Computers), 34/1884 of Padmanabha Chambers, Mamangalam, Kochi -25. (By Adv.Sri. George Cherian Karippaparambil) Vs 1. Mr.M.Balakrishnan, S/o.Late T.Kunhappa, Teacher, : RESPONDENTS GVHSS, Edayannur, Residing at “Sargam”, Kololam, P.O.Edayannur, Kannur. 2. Newlet Packard Asia Pacific Ltd., Newlett Packard Hong Kong Ltd, 19/F, City Plaza One, 111 Kings Road, Taikooshing, Hong Kong. (By Adv.Sri.S.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in the file of O.P.No. 231/2002 dated 31/08/2006. The appellants are the opposite parties prefers this appeal from the above order. In short the complainant is a teacher by profession. He has a son and a daughter who are students. The opposite parties had made advertisements through media and newspapers that they are, manufacturers and dealers of high quality computers, inkjet printers, U.P.S. and other accessories, the complainant on 28.01.2002 purchased a computer with HPBrio P III 1 GHE with colour monitor inkjet printer, UPS its accessories of specification. He paid Rs.47,000/- after payment of the amount and the instruments were delivered and installed at the residence of the complainant by the 1st opposite party. A warranty period was provided for one year. The key board of the computer showed defects on 29.01.2002 itself and the service personnel of first opposite party corrected the same on 31.01.2002 by replacing it. Since they could not rectify the defects at the first instance they had replaced the keyboard itself. Thereafter the machine started showing defects of hanging and it was duly informed to the 1st opposite party. The service personnel who attended the machine on 14.02.2002 informed the complainant that it was only software problem and they had rectified it. They have recorded that the problem is completed. Immediately after that the computer showed some defect and hanging. The complainant being a Government employee is also disheartened by the supply of a defective system. He ha suffered mental shock and he estimates damages to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 03.08.2002 to the opposite parties. They received the lawyer notice in the reply notice they given false questions. The complainant is using TV and other electrical gadgets in his house and so far he did not experience any change due to the passing of alleged high tension wire. The allegation of the opposite parties is that the defect was occurred due to the system was working under the 11kv electrical line. Hence the complaint. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed their version. They contended that they are only dealers of opposite party No.3 and who is manufacturer of the computer. The opposite party 1 and 2 were unnecessary parties in the above case. They contended that the machine was tested and selected by the complainant after satisfying himself that the same is an excellent computer. He has taken it. There are no defects to the computer. The complaints of hanging problem pointed out by the complainant was identified due to the effect of high power electrical wires that are passing very near to the house of the complainant. Due to this reason there is flickering of the T.V installed in the house of the complainant. It is true that the computer was tested in the presence of the complainant and the complainant was convinced that the hanging problem was caused due to the effect of high power electrical wires and that the complainant will not be able to use the computer from his residence. That is the reason, why the computer showed defect. The mother board and hard disk were replaced by the opposite party before confirming the actual cause of the defects only to satisfy the complainant who insisted to replace the same. The opposite party had required the computer to the satisfaction of the complainant as and when he had made complaints. The opposite parties are ready to carry out and repair as per the warranty if the main ailment can be pointed any defects to the computer from any other premises other than the complainant’s residence. The complainant has to prove that there are defects to the computer by taking out an expert commission examination. It is incorrect to say that the printer supplied by the opposite parties never gave multiple pages per sheet. The printer is supplied free of cost. There was no deficiency in service and the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation. The opposite parties sent reply to the lawyer notice. So the complaint is to be dismissed with cost. Two points issued by the Forum below mainly: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the computer with compensation? If so, the quantum? The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. DW1 was also examined and Ext.C1 marked. The opposite party No.3 has not adduced any oral evidence. The Forum below has rightly answered to the points arised for the consideration and found that the complainant is entitled to get replacing of the computer or refund of the value the computer to the tune of Rs.41,000/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000 for causing such difficulty and cost of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties. In the result the Forum directed to the opposite parties either to replace the computer with a new one or to refund the computer with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.47,000/- to the complainant within one month. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- with cost of the proceedings Rs.2000/- from the opposite parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order . The appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum. On this day this appeal come before this Commission for final hearing, the Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum is not accordance with the law and evidence. It is liable to be set aside. Heard both sides, and perused the entire evidence adduced by both petitioner and respondents. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the Forum below found that the computer system is defective due to the manufacturing mistake. He pointed out that the system was not functioning not properly due to reason that the system was functioning under the heavy tension 11 kv line. In other words due to the heavy electro magnetic net within that area no computer normally functioned. But this argument is baseless. Expert Commissioner is saying that the defect was due to the manufacturing mistakes. There is no authority to prove that the defect of the computer was due to the magnetic feald of the 11KV high tension electrical line. The Forum below rightly examined the fact and circumstances of this case and analysed the evidence available before the Forum below and reached in a conclusion. The order passed by the Forum below is strictly accordance with the law and evidence. It is a legally substantiable and there is no reason to interfere in the finding of the Forum below. We up held the order passed by the Forum below. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. The points of the appeal is answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Kb. | 
