CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 31/08
Monday the 29th day of August, 2011
Petitioner : V.K. Korah,
Vazhakala Valiya Veettil,
Thrikothamagalam,
Vakathanam village, Puthuppally. (Adv.A.Z.Jacob Johny Jose Nidhiri
Vs.
Opposite party : Supreme Computer Systems,
LKR Buildings, Post office Road,
Kottayam.Rep.by its Manager.
2)M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd,
Arena Hosur Main Raod,
Adugodi, Bangalore 560030.
(Adv. Muhammed Nizar)
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant purchased a computer and its accessories manufactured by the second opposite party from the first opposite party for Rs.49,725/- on 27-2-2007. The first opposite party collected another Rs.3250/- by way of charges for additional 2 years warranty pack. Ever since the purchase, the computer and its accessories were not working properly. On complaints, the opposite party deputed its authorized repairers M/s. Redington Service, on several occasions. Nevertheless, the said computer worked properly. The complainant demanded replacement or refund of the purchase price and additional warranty charges. On 19/11/2007 the repairers took away some of the parts of the computer and the same are not replaced yet. The complainant caused issue of lawyer’s notice and the opposite party sent reply notice disowning its liability and asking the complainant to approach the manufacturer of the system. According to the complainant, his dealing is exclusively with the 1st opposite party which issued invoices and therefore the trader is liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of the computer or refund of purchase price and warranty charges, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs.
The first and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed versions separately.
The first opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law.
ii) The petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties
iii) At the time of purchase the first opposite party has clearly intimated that the service of the computer and the replacement of parts are directly done by the manufacturer. Instruction was given how to get the service of the 2nd opposite party through their toll free number
iv) Subsequently the service was done by M/s Redington, the authorized service provider of the manufacturer. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party.
v) This opposite party is only a retail outlet of M/s.Hewlett Packard and they are not liable to take back the said computer or replace the same or refund any amount. It is very clear from the warranty card that service is being done by the company.
vi) This opposite party has not made any promise regarding the quality and competency of the computer. The complainant has purchased the said computer only on the basis of advertisements and brochures released by M/s.Hewlett Packard.
The first opposite party alleged that the petition is false and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs to them.
The second opposite party filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The averments that the complainant on 27-2-07 had purchased a Compaq computer along with TFT Monitor, all in one Printer and UPS-APC from first opposite party for a sum of Rs..49,725/- is not within the knowledge of this opposite party.
ii) The complainant has suppressed the fact that as and when he had filed complaints the same were attended promptly and the issues were resolved by carrying out repairs and replacing the required parts in the unit.
iii) On 07/07/07 vide CA 0426384, the complainant had complained that there was no display for which this opposite party had replaced the mother board and the unit was working fine. On 17/09/2007 and 21/09/07, the complainant again complained that there was no display and the mother board and RAM was replaced.. On 12-10-07 and 08-11-07, the complainant lodged complaint alleging that there was no display, but the complainant did not turn up after lodging the call, hence the same was closed. On 10/11/09, again there was complaint that there was no display for which the mother board and processor was replaced and the unit was working fine. Thereafter no other defect was ever pointed out and has not lodged any complaints.
According to the second opposite party, they are not liable under Consumer Protection Act and prayed to dismiss the complain t with costs to them.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A9
Point No.1
Heard the counsels for both parties and perused the documents placed on record. The complainant averred that he purchased computer and accessories from first opposite party for Rs.49,725/-. Evidencing the said purchase the complainant produced original tax invoice dtd 27/2/07 for Rs.49,725/- issued by the first opposite party and it is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant further averred that ever since the purchase, the computer and its accessories were not working properly. The complainant produced the job card dtd 15/7/07 and it is marked as Ext.A3. In Ext.A3 the problems reported are “no display gives beep sound” and it is closed with a remark to replace the mother board. From Ext.A3, it is clear that the computer started showing complaints within 5 months of its purchase. The job card dtd 18/7/07 marked as Ext.A4.From Ext.A4 it can be seen that the repair action of replacing the mother board and repairing the windows were done within 5 months of the purchase. On the eighth month of its purchase, the computer again showed the very same complaint of no display; no beep and it needed further replacement of mother board. Evidencing the said replacement, the complainant filed the job card dtd 3/10/07 and it is marked as Ext.A5. The complainant filed another job card dtd 13/11/07 which is marked as Ext.A6. In Ext.A6 the problem reported is “no display” and the problem diagnosed is “memory refixer and M/B replaced but the same complaint repeat, problem with processor”. But as per Ext.A6, the computer is not seen repaired. Another job card dtd 19/11/07 is produced and marked as Ext.A7. In Ext.A7, the problem reported is ‘BIOS default’ and the repair action taken is “M/B Memory, HOD FAN etc are taken for checking purpose”. But nothing is seen or record to prove that whether the last complaint is rectified or not.
But according to the opposite party as and when he had filed complaints the same were attended promptly and the issues were resolved by carrying out repairs and replacing the required parts in the unit. As per the job cards produced by the complainant, the malfunctioning of the computer is not seen cured. Even though the opposite party no.2 contented that the unit is now working perfectly alright, nothing is placed on record to prove the said contention. The first opposite party contented that the first opposite party is only a retail outlet of the second opposite party and not the manufacturer of the said computer and therefore not liable to pay any compensation to the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant countered the aforesaid contention of the first opposite party and submitted that the privity of contract is exclusively between the complainant and the first opposite party.
In our opinion, no consumer will be satisfied if the newly purchased computer becomes defective time and again. In this instant case the complainant’s computer started showing malfunctioning from the fifth month of its purchase and the said malfunctioning persisted all throughout the year. As no evidence is placed on record to prove that the opposite parties had cured the said malfunctioning to the complainant’s satisfaction. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.
The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally refund the price of Rs.49,725/- along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant. On complying the order the opposite parties can take back the computer and accessories as per Ext.A1 tax invoice.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-Original tax invoice dtd 27-2-07
Ext.A2-Original invoice of warranty charges
Ext.A3-Job card dtd 15/7/09
Ext.A4-Job card dtd 18/7/09
Ext.A5-Job card dtd 3/10/09
Ext.A6-Job card dtd 13/11/09
Ext.A7-Job card dtd 19/11/09
Ext.A8-Office copy of advocate’s notice dtd 23/10/07
Ext.A9-Reply notice issued by opposite party
Documents of opposite party
