IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 17th day of December 2009 CC.No.183/2008 Sidharthan.C.B, Chakkathara House, P.O.Kadumeni, Complainant Kasaragod Dist. (Rep. by Adv.T.V.Vijayan) The Manager, Scnate INFOTECH 3rd floor Punchakunnel Building Opposite party Temple Road, Cherupuzha O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party either to replace the computer set or to pay its value of Rs.30, 000/- along with Rs.10, 000/- as compensation and cost. The complaint’s case is that his children are employed in gulf countries and in order to interact with them he approached the opposite party for installing a computer with a net system. So the opposite party installed a computer system in the house of the complainant. But at the time of purchasing the computer system the opposite party offered the system for a price of Rs.24, 000/- and the complainant had given Rs.25, 000/- to the opposite party. Later the opposite party demanded an exorbitant amount of Rs.27800/- as the charge of the system and the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.3000/-. But after the 2nd week of its installation itself the system was not functioning properly. So the service personal from the opposite party came to the complainant and rectified the defect and demanded service charge in every occasion even though it has a warranty of 3 years. Again the system became defective and the service personal from the opposite party informed the complainant that the system was defaulted due to lightning. Moreover the name of the modem as per bill is ‘U max’. But the opposite party brought the modem byname Tech-com. The opposite party extracted money from the complainant and install a defective computer into the complainant’s house. According to the complainant the opposite party cheated the complainant and shown deficiency of service and hence the complainant sustained damages. So the complainant issued a registered notice to the opposite party. But instead of curing the defects, they replied it by stating untenable contentions. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum, the opposite party appeared through Adv.Joe George and filed their version. The Opposite party admitted that they have; installed a computer system in the house of the complainant. But denied the other contentions with respect to the necessity, price and other incidents described in the complaint. The opposite party contended that they have installed the computer along with computer table and necessary accessories. The price was calculated including this also and the same was informed to the complainant and his son and the complainant has paid the amount as per installment after installation of the computer system. At the time of the installation, the opposite party made clear to the complainant about the necessity of sufficient earthing for the connection. But due to the careless use there is virus in the system which caused defect of the software of the system. The opposite party made clear to the complaint that the defects caused due to excess voltage, lightning etc will not come under the purview of the warranty. More over at the time of instillation, the complainant was supplied by U-max modem. But that U max modem was became defective due to lightning and was replaced with Tec-com modem as per the repeated request of the complainant. Meanwhile the opposite party has left India for job after making necessary alternative for giving service to the customers. Accordingly they inspected the complainant’s computer system and found that it became defective due to lightning and the same was informed to the complainant also. So the defect in the system is not covered under warranty and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3 and DW1 and Ext.A1 to A8. Issues 1 to 3 The opposite party’s admission along with the Exts.A1 to A4 proves the installation of computer system in the complainant’s house by opposite party having a warranty of 3 years. Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 3.12.07, A2 and A4 are notices issued by the complainant to opposite party and Ext.A3 is the reply issued by the opposite party. The complaint contented that the opposite party had extracted more amounts from him than its actual price. Complainant’s case is that he had given Rs.28, 000/- instead of Rs.24, 000/-. But as per Ext.A1 invoice the complainant has to pay Rs.27, 800/- as the price of the computer system including the computer table. So the contention of the complainant that the opposite party had extracted more money than the actual price of the computer cannot be accepted. Another contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has levied service charge for repairs during the warranty period. The complainant has produced Ext.A5 and A6 series bills. Which were issued during the warranty period. Ext.A5 bill is dated 18.6.08 which is for an amount of Rs.350/-. The description shown is “Board checking” and “service charge two times”. It is further recorded in the description that’ failure in case of lightning and so board return to the owner not cleared”. So as per Ext.A5 Rs.350/- was levied not for curing the defects but for checking the system to find out what is the defect Ext.A8 is also issued for checking and finding out the defect and for which the service man has not charged any amount since it is during warranty period. So Ext.A5 will come under the purview of warranty. Similarly Ext.A6 CD is issued for Virus clearing and issued on 5.3.08, it is a service which is to be done by the opposite party free of cost since it was done during the warranty period. The Ext.A6 (2) Bill was issued not only for soft ware installation but also for formatting. Formatting has to be done by the service personals during the warranty period. In Ext.A6 (2) it is seen that Rs.400/- Written as service charge and for Blue tooth installation Rs.330/- and thus total amount shown is Rs.530/-. So it is clear that the opposite party has charged Rs.200/- as per Ext.A6 (2) as service charge. So the opposite party has shown unfair trade practice by charging Rs./350/- as per Ext.A5, Rs.250/- as per Ext.A6(1) and Rs.200/- as per A6(2).So the opposite party is liable to refund the above said amount of Rs.800/- with 6% interest from the date of receipt till realization. The other point to be decided is whether the modem becomes defective due to lightning. The complainant contended that the modem became defective due to inferior quality. But according to opposite party due to lightning the modem became defective. In Ext.A5 it was written as “failure chip in case of lightning”. DW1 deposed that “ physical Bbn I¯nb \nebnembncp¶p. BhnhcT ]cmXn¡mct\mSp Rm³ ]dªncp¶p. Internal modem lightning kab¯v high voltage Ibdn I¯nt¸mbXmWv. DW1 is an expert having diploma in computer hardware. He further deposed that modem ¯n IqSn thsd high voltage hcm³ km[yXbnÃm¯XpsImmWv A§s\]dªXp. .Electricity voltage IqSnbm tamU¯n hcm³ km[yXbnÃ. Lightning supply  IqSn h¶memWv {]iv\§Ä DmhpI. The deposition of PW3 who is a service man of RMS Technology Pvt.Ltd. is that “ ]cntim[n¨t¸mÄ power supply h¶Xn\m capacity short Bbncp¶p” So this words of PW3 substantiate the contention of the opposite party that the modem became defective due to lightning because the complainant is using UPS and there is no other chance for power variation. So it is clear that the defect of the modem is due to the careless use of the complainant and hence he is not entitled to any remedy with respect to the modem. But the opposite party has shown unfair trade practice by giving Ext.A5, A6(1) and A6(2) bill and hence the complainant is entitled to get Rs.800/- from the opposite party. So we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to refund the same with 6% interest from the date of receipt till realization with Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and hence order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to refund Rs.800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred only) received by opposite party as per Ext.A5,A6(1) and A6 (2)with 6% interest from the date of receipt i.e. date of Ext.A5,A6(1) and A6(2) till the date of realization with Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Cash bill issued by OP A2 & A3..Copy f the letter sent to OP and reply A4.Copy of the letter dt.25.7.08 sent to OP A5.Cash bill dt.18.6.08 issued by OP A6.Service charge bills A7.Telephone bills A8.Service report dt.24.9.08 Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant PW2. John Britto PW3.Sanal Kumar.K Witness examined for the opposite party: DW1.Dhaneesh.K /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
