O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant purchased a computer from the first opposite party on 24-10-2008 for her personal purpose for Rs. 24,750.10. It consists of a monitor, CPU and UPS. At the time of purchase the first opposite party offered the complainant that there would be warranty for one year from the date of purchase of the said computer. From 28th August 2009 there was a sound in the U.P.S and the on-off switch of the U.P.S found some difficulty for the smooth function. The complainant entrusted the U.P.S to the opposite party for rectifying the said problem. The first opposite party offered that after one week either it will be repaired or a new one will be given to the complainant. After one week instead of repairing the entrusted U.P.S, the first opposite party gave an old U.P.S to the complainant. But the given old one also was not in proper working condition. Evenafter repeated requests the first opposite party neither repaired the entrusted U.P.S nor gave a new U.P.S to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the malfunctioning of the U.P.S was due to manufacturing defect. The complainant further alleged that the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties caused inconveniences and monetary loss. Hence he filed this complaint claiming the refund of the purchase price Rs. 24,750.10 with 18% interest, compensation Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost. The first and second opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version together with the following main contentions. 1. These opposite parties had not offered one year warranty for the computer and accessories. The complainant had purchased a U.P.S manufactured by ‘Umax’ company and therefore we are ignorant about the warranty conditions of ‘Umax’. 2. It is specifically stated in the bill that the defects arising during the warranty period are to be rectified by submitting the item before the authorized service centre. 3. The computer supplied by the opposite parties is not having any manufacturing defect. If any malfunctioning has happened it is only due to the mishandling of the computer by the complainant. 4. The malfunctioning of the U.P.S switch is only a physical damage and therefore it is not coming under the warranty cover. 5. This complaint is filed after a use of ten months so it is clear that the computer is not having any manufacturing defect. 6. We have not given any promise to repair the U.P.S or to replace it with a new one. 7. The complainant approached the opposite parties on 07-09-09 with the defective U.P.S but we informed her that it is impossible to repair or replace it as the warranty of 6 months has expired. But we rectified the U.P.S and gave it back to the complainant. But she took an adamant stand to get it replaced. 8. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. Points for consideration are: (i) Whether there is any deficiency of 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 A2 Point No.1 Heard the counsels for both parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the computer, CPU, UPS and the accessories were purchased from the first opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the said items were purchased on 24-10-08. The complaint produced the original tax invoice issued by the first opposite party evidencing the said purchase and it is marked as exhibit A1. The complainant averred that at the time of purchase, the first opposite party offered one year warranty for the monitor, CPU, UPS and other accessories. Where as the opposite parties counter averred that the warranty of the purchased items is only 6 months. The complainant produced the original of the warranty card and it is marked as exhibit A2. On scanning exhibit A2 it is understood that the warranty period is no where mentioned in it. Exhibit A2 does not make it clear whether the warranty period is 6 months or 1 year or life long. So the opposite parties contention regarding “warranty period – 6 months” is not sustainable. The exhibit A2 itself is a proof of the unfairness on the part opposite parties and manufacturer. Selling goods having vague and ambiguous warranty clauses and thus cheating the poor consumers cannot be allowed. The complainant averred that instead of providing a new U.P.S or repairing the U.P.S entrusted to the 1st opposite party on 07-09-09, they returned an old U.P.S which was also not working. This allegation put forward by the complainant is not denied by the opposite parties. This is another instance of unfairness committed by the opposite parties. Further the non-returning of the entrusted U.P.S shows the opposite party’s inability to repair it. Submission advanced by the learned counsel of the opposite parties is that they were only dealers and liability for refund of price of the computer was that of manufacturer who was not impleaded as a party in the complaint. The learned counsel of the complainant countered that the complainant did not have any privity of contract with the manufacturer and therefore, jointer of the manufacturer as a party in the complaint is not necessary. In our opinion as the manufacturer and dealer are the parties for selling a product, the dealer cannot evade from the responsibility of the defects of the product accusing that the manufacturer has sole responsibility and that the dealer is only a seller of the products. The opposite parties contented that the malfunctioning of the U.P.S is only due to the mishandling of the computer by the complainant. But nothing is placed on evidence to prove the aforesaid contention. The opposite parties counsel further contented that it is specifically stated in the bill that the defects arising during the warranty period are to be rectified by submitting the product before the authorized service centre. The original bill ext.A1 does not contain any such clause and also does not contain any list of authorized service centers. We are of the view that the complainant should not be left at distress by the dealer seeking shelter that the manufacturer is the person who is responsible for all the defects. The opposite parties’ counsel submitted that the manufacturer of the said U.P.S has stopped manufacturing the said model and therefore replacement is not feasible. The learned counsel further submitted that the said computer cannot be made functioning by using a U.P.S of any other company. From that aforementioned submission, it is clear that due to the defective condition of the U.P.S, the complainant has to change the monitor, UPS and the other accessories also along with the UPS for making it usable. In this instant case the complainant is destined for the loss of use of the computer only because of the reason that he opted the alleged monitor, UPS, CPU etc and purchased them from the opposite party’s shop. Keeping in view the mental agony and harassment which might have been suffered by the complainant we hold the opposite parties deficient in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 In view of the findings in point no.1, we allow the complaint. In the result the complaint is ordered as follows. The first and second opposite parties will jointly and severally refund the purchase price of Rs,24,750.10 to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.3000/- towards the mental agony and loss of use of computer and a litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. At the time of refunding the opposite parties can take back the goods supplied as per ext.A1 bill. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Appendix Documents of the complainant Ext.A1-The original bill Ext.A2-The original of the warranty card Documents of the opposite parties Nil By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
