By Sri. A. A. Vijayan,  President

    The complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

1.    The dispute is in respect of the damage caused to a computer system purchased by complainant. A brief account of averments of the complainant is as follows:-
    On 31-08-2010 the complainant had purchased a computer system from first opposite party for an amount of  Rs.26,650/- and accessories for Rs.6,000/-.  Then from October onwards CPU of the computer was lagging.  When it is taken to the first opposite party they would repair  and defect would be cured.  This was being repeated for several months.  Thus complainant is suffered  financial loss and he lost faith in the first opposite party.  So he prays  for giving direction to first opposite party to take back the computer and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the financial loss of the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony together with cost of the proceedings.
2.    Subsequently  as per the order in I.A.1/14 the complainant impleaded  opposite party No.2 and 3.  Subsequently at the fag end of the proceedings complainant filed I.A.269/15  to delete opposite party No.3 and that was  allowed.  
3.    First opposite party filed version stating  as follows:-
    It is true that the complainant had purchased a computer system on August 31st  for M.S.M.H.S.S., Kallingaparamba School.  After six months on 08-01-11 the computer was brought with a complaint of display problem.  When it was checked by this opposite party they got convinced that the complaint was that of mother board.  After contacting the Company service was conducted and mother board was returned to complainant.  Again after two months he came to the shop  with the same complaint and that was also cured.  First opposite party was told by the Company engineer that the reason for the damage was due to defect in earthing in the main power circuit of complainant.  This information was passed to complainant also.  It is false to say that the computer damaged for 10 times.  When the working report is perused that would be made clear.  When the complainant  approached this opposite party again with the same complaint they  brought a new mother board from third opposite party and that was given to the complainant.  The complainant was also convinced that either the Company or the first opposite party are not responsible for the complaint.  The warranty service is given to the customer by manufacturing Company and thus the Company also to be impleaded in this case.
4.    Opposite party No.2 did not file any version.
5.    Opposite party No.3 filed version stating as follows:-
    This opposite party came to know about the complaint on 14-11-2013 as a sign of goodwill, this opposite pay was willing to give a box replacement to the complainant as per the warranty terms and conditions.  Since required informations were not provided by the complainant replacement could not be processed  by this opposite party.  The opposite party is not aware of the complaint registered by the complainant with first opposite arty.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or damages as claimed.  There was no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Since no allegation was raised against this opposite party by the complainant there is no cause of  action to claim damages or compensation from this opposite party.  The cause of action shown in the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complaint is to be dismissed.
6.    Complainant filed affidavit and  opposite party No.2 also filed affidavit.  No documents were produced by parties.      .
7.    Points arise for consideration are:-
   (i)    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
           (ii)    Relief and costs.
8.    Point No.(i):-
    It  is significant to note that in the complaint the grievance    of the complainant was that after purchasing a  computer system from first opposite party about 10 times it was repaired by first opposite party himself and since the system is getting  damaged frequently  he does not want that system and he claims  for redressing the financial loss suffered by him and compensation.  In the original complaint  first opposite party alone was impleaded.  In the version of first opposite party he contended that the manufacturing company also to be impleaded in this case.  Then complainant filed an application  on 01-01-2014 as I.A.1/14 to implead the Managing Director of  the first opposite party in his personal capacity  as opposite party No.2 in  his personal capacity and manufacturing company as opposite party No.3.  Subsequently on 02-07-2015 he filed I.A.269/15 to delete opposite party No.3, the manufacturer from the party array.  Before filing this application opposite party No.3 had entered appearance and filed version  therein they stated that the first opposite party is an Intel Technology Provider Programme Gold  Member  based in Malappuram.  Admittedly first opposite party is service provider in respect of the computer systems manufactured by opposite party No.3.  It is significant to note that no where in the complaint the complainant has raised any complaint against the service providedr by opposite party No.1.  Admittedly on number of occasions the complainant had approached opposite party No.1 for curing the defect of the computer system.  First opposite party revealed in the version that the same complaint was found repeated  in the case of complainant and the motherboard of the computer was also replaced.  But again the complaint was repeated.  It is also stated in the version of  opposite party No.1 that the wiring system in the house of complainant when the computer is installed  might be defective otherwise the same complaint would not have been repeated.  But no satisfactory evidence is available to prove  that the wiring system of the place where in the computer installed was defective as alleged by  opposite party No.1.  It is also to pertinent to note that the complainant has never raised any complaint against the service of opposite party No.1 in the complaint.  His grievance is  based on the fact that the computer system becomes defunct frequently and he was forced to take the system to opposite party No.1 for repairing.  He has no case that the service rendered by opposite party No.1 was defective.  That indicates there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  
9.    He claimed the damages and compensation from opposite party No.1 only on the ground that he purchased the system from opposite party No.1.  Though the manufacturer (opposite party No.3) was impleaded by complainant on the claim of opposite party No.1, he  subsequently filed petition to delete opposite party No.3 stating  that  he has nothing to do with opposite party No.3, the manufacturer.  If the system of the complainant was defective due to manufacturing  defect the proper party to replace the same will be the manufacturer ie., opposite party No.3.  The complainant himself impleaded him and then deleted  from the party array.  The claim of complainant will be maintainable against opposite party No.1 only if there is a proof of deficiency of service or  unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1.  No such allegation is raised by complainant  either in the complaint or in the affidavit.  We cannot even order for replacement of the computer against opposite party No.3 the manufacturer because complainant himself deleted him from the party array without understanding the legal consequences.  Under these circumstances we are constrained to dismiss the complaint.  The complainant  should have sought replacement  of the system and that too after impleading  the manufacturer.  The case of the complainant is not an ignorance of the identity of the manufacturer.  On the other hand after impleading the  manufacturer without a second thought he filed petition to delete him from the party array.  Therefore we cannot pass an order against opposite party No.3 under these circumstances.  Point is decided accordingly.
10.    Point No.(ii):-
On the basis of the findings on the above point  we dismiss the complaint.

        Dated  this 25th  day  of  June,  2016.

                                          A. A. VIJAYAN,  PRESIDENT

R. K. MADANAVALLY,  MEMBER                              

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER    

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant        :   PW1
PW1        :    Dileep Kumar.D., complainant.
Documents marked on the side of  the complainant        :   Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties    :   Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties    :   Nil

                                              
                                            A. A. VIJAYAN,  PRESIDENT

                                              
R. K. MADANAVALLY,  MEMBER               

 MINI MATHEW, MEMBER