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 with mother board having details K 8 N 4E- DELUXE – UAYZ, manufactured by the Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. in January 2006. The warranty of the said mother board expired in 2009 January. Two months after the expiry of the warranty period the mother board became -2- defective and was entrusted to the Kottayam and Kozhikode Asus Service Centres. But they expressed their inability to repair it and directed the complainant to give the mother board to the second opposite party. As directed the complainant entrusted the mother board to the second opposite party on 2..5..2009. After four days the second opposite party informed the complainant that they are unable to repair it and that it is to be send to the Mumbai Service Centre for repairing. It was sent to the Mumbai Service Centre and after one month, they also informed their inability to repair the said mother board. According to the complainant all the parts of the computer except the mother board are properly functioning. The complainant alleged that as the mother board is defective his computer worth Rs. 30,000/- is remaining idle. The complainant further alleged that as the Asus Company is not producing the mother board suitable for AMD Athlon processor he could not buy another mother board and thus make his computer functioning. The complainant again alleged that the inability of the opposite parties to repair the defective mother board had caused a lot of inconvenience and loss to the complainant. Hence he filed this complaint claiming Rs. 55,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost. The first , second and third opposite parties entered appearance and filed versions. The second and third opposite parties filed separate version containing the same contentions. The versions came with the following main contentions. i) The complainant has not purchased any computer with or without mother board from 1st opposite party in the month of January, -3- 2007. The complainant has not produced any purchase bill for the purchase of the mother board or the computer. ii) As per the serial No. of the mother board (5 BMMG 16839), the manufacturing month and year of the mother board is November, 2005. Warranty being provided by Asus for mother boards in India is 3 years from the manufacturing year. It is actually sold in January 2006. But according to the complainant he purchased the mother board in January 2007 and the warranty is only for 2 years. iii) The mother board was out of warranty period when the complainant brought it for repair with the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. At that time the said type of mother board became obsolete and this opposite party had stopped manufacturing of the same. In such circumstances the option available to the complainant was to upgrade the computer by changing the mother board, processor and RAM together as these three components are mutually compliable. iv) It is stated in the invoice that any disputes arising between the purchaser and seller, will be subject to jurisdiction of Mumbai. The complainant brought the mother board to the second opposite party on 25..6..2009 which is after the return from the 1st opposite party at cochin as non-repairable on 11..6..2009 only for filing this complaint. The complainant is mis-using the process of this forum. -4- Hence the 1st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them. Points for consideration are:- i) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consists of deposition of complainant, affidavits of opposite parties and exhibits A1 to A4 , B1 . Point No. 1 The 1st opposite party contented that the complainant has not purchased any computer with or without mother board from them. The complainant produced copy of the purchase bill and it is marked as Exhibit A4. The mother board Asus K8 ME –PELUXE is purchased as the second item of Ext. A4 bill by the A and G Associates. The complainant deposed that A & G associates was the shop conducted by him. There is no evidence to counter the case of the complainant that he purchased the mother board in the name of his shop, A & G Associates. The opposite parties further contented that the mother board was out of warranty when the complainant brought it for repair with the second and third opposite parties. Admittedly the mother board was returned by all the opposite parties as non-repairable. According to the opposite parties the said type of mother board became obsolete and the first opposite party stopped manufacturing the same. Where as the complainant was ready to repair the defective mother -5- board or to buy a brand new same model mother board suitable to his AMD Anthlon processor in order to make his computer functioning. From the circumstances it is clear that due to the stoppage of production of the alleged model of mother board and non-repairable state of the complainant’s mother board the complainant suffered loss of use of computer, monetary loss, time loss and mental agony. So we find that in the instant case the period of warranty is not much relevant. The manufacturers are not justified in producing products which will work only during the warranty period and will cease to work on the date of expiry of warranty itself carrying the certificate “non-repairable.” The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant was not ready to accept their offer of a refurbished mother board of the same model available at that time on 4..5..2009. But nothing is placed on record to prove that such an offer was made by the opposite parties and the said offer was refused by the complainant. According to opposite parties the option available to the complainant is to upgrade the computer by changing the mother board, processor and RAM together as these three components are mutually compailable. In this instant case the only mistake committed by the complainant is that he purchased a mother board manufactured by the Asus company. For that mistake is it necessary to punish him by directing him to purchase three new parts of the computer namely mother board, processor and RAM together for the non repairable condition of the first opposite party’s product. In the facts and circumstances we hold the first opposite party deficient in service. In our view -6- the ends of justice will be adequately met by allowing a compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1, the petition is allowed. The first opposite party will pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- for the loss of use of computer, monetory loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded damages will carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishanan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the complainant Ext. A1: Copy of inward challan Ext. A2: Message received from the opposite party Ext. A3: Copy of the replacement delivery challan Ext. A4: Copy of invoice dtd: 11..1..2008 Documents of the opposite parties Ext. B1: The computer generated copy of stock transfer invoice. | 
