CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.132/10
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2011
Petitioner : Ninan P.B
Chirapurathuputhumana,
Pariyaram PO,
Puthuppally, Kottayam Dt.
(Adv.K.Kuruvilla John)
Vs.
Opposite party : Manager,
Oxygen the Digital Shop,
Pulimoottil Arcade, Near Plantation
Corporation, K.K. Road, Kottayam-1
(Adv.Sophy Punnoose)
2) Manager,
Head Office, HCL Info Systems Ltd
E-17, Sector-11, Noida-201301.
(Adv.Thomas Sebastian&Rajesh Thomas)
ORDER
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 17-5-10 is as follows.
On 3/5/2009 the complainant paid Rs.500/- to the 1st opposite party towards the advance, and booked a HCL computer. On 22-5-2009 the complainant paid Rs.27,700/- to the 1st opposite party towards the balance amount of the price of the HCL computer together with its stand. The 1st opposite party gave assurance to the complainant that the computer has no defect and it will perform properly. The 1st opposite party has given 3 year warranty to the computer. HCL Company has given one year warranty to the computer. On 22-10-2009, the computer became defective. The complainant informed the matter to the 1st opposite party. On 3/11/2009 one mechanic of the 1st opposite party came to the residence of the complainant. The mechanic recorded “No display”. On 6/11/2009, another mechanic of the 1st opposite party brought a mother board of the computer and installed it in the computer. But the same day itself again the computer became defective. So many complaints were defected by the mechanics of the 1st opposite party on several occasions. The mechanic of the 1st opposite party repaired the computer for 6 times. But, still the computer is defective. The 1st opposite party is not able to correct the defects of the computer. The 1st opposite party sold the computer to the complainant for price after willfully hiding the serious defects of the computer. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant sustained huge loss and hardships. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The warranty offered by the 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturing company in the present case is for a period of one year. However since on enquiry with 2nd opposite party a special scheme was offered to the complainant namely warranty extension pack for a further period of 2 years. The complainant contacted 1st opposite party on 3/11/2009 stating that there is no display in the computer and took the motherboard, processor and memory for a thorough examination to find out as to whether there is any problem. Further examination effected it was identified that the above said components do not have any defects and is in perfect condition. However since even thereafter it was found that the computer system is not functioning, it was provisionally identified that the complaint persisted due to the problems in the SMPS Unit mainly carrying out the function of providing power to the system. However since there was some delay in getting the repaired/replaced item under warranty from the 2nd opposite party, the 1st opposite party initiated to produce a new SMPS unit and installed the same in the computer of the complainant on 4/12/09 as a goodwill gesture. However the complainant again informed that the problem still persisted and as a consequence detailed examination was done in the CPU unit and it was identified that there was no problem with the CPU unit. Finally on 6-4-10 the serviced SMPS unit was again installed in the computer of the complainant and the complainant did not raise any complaint thereafter. It is only when the copy of the present complaint was received that this opposite party came to know about the further grievances of the complainant and the problems allegedly faced by the complainant due to SMPS unit. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked Exts.A1 to A16. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit. The expert commissioner filed report which is marked Ext.C1.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences. The case of the complainant is that the computer became defective even after repeated repairs. According to the complainant the computer was not working properly, within a short period, after purchase. The 1st opposite party has taken a contention that the alleged defects which was rectified by them as and when reported by the complainant. According to the 1st opposite party there was no deficiency in service on the part of them. Admittedly the computer is having some defects. The 1st opposite party has tried to repair the defects in the computer. The alleged defect was not properly repaired by the opposite parties and their men. From C1- the expert commissioners report it can be seen that the computer is having serious defects. From the available evidence and documents it can be seen that the computer is defective.
The date of purchase of the computer was on 22/5/09. The 1st service call report was on 3/11/09 ie within 6 months after purchase. From A6 to A15service call reports it can be seen one after another there are series complaints in the computer. From this it can be seen that the computer is having defects and the same can not be cured by the opposite parties even after repeated repairs. So the complainant has sustained heavy loss and hardships. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct opposite parties to refund the price of the computer ie Rs.26,700/- to the complainant and pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.2000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one moth from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till the date of payments. All the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant, on getting the payment the complainant shall returned the computer to the opposite parties.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by the complainant.
Ext.A1-is the copy of cash receipt dtd 3/5/09
Ext.A2-is the copy of cash receipt dtd 22/5/09 for Rs.27,700/-
Ext.A3-iis the copy of invoice dtd 21/5/09
Ext.A4-is the copy of invoice dtd 21/5/09
Ext.A5-is the copy of warranty card
Ext.A6-is the copy of service call report dtd 3/11/09
Ext.A7-is the copy of service call report dtd 6/11/09
Ext.A8-is the copy of service call report dt 7/11/09
Ext.A9-is the copy of service call report dtd 4/12/09
Ext.A10-is the copy of service call report dt 5/12/09
Ext.A11-is the copy of service call report dtd 15/12/09
Ext.A12-is the copy of service call report dtd 21/1/10
Ext.A13-is the copy of service call report dtd 12/2/10
Ext.A14-is the copy of service call report dtd 23/2/10
Ext.A15-is the copy of service call report dtd 6/4/10
Ext.A16-is the copy of Declaration by 2nd opposite party
Ext.C1-is the expert commissioner’s report.
Documents produced by opposite parties
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
