IN THECONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE    10^th DAYOF NOVEMBER 2021

                     Present: -Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

                                     Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

                                     Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.243/2019

      Sri.GeorgeLal, 53 years,

S/o P.Y.Georgekutty,

PadippuravilaVeedu,

Alummoodu.P.O.,Mukhathala,

Kollam 691577.

(By Adv.MaruthadiR.Sreeraj)                                 :         Complainant

V/s                                                                                

1. Managing Director,

‘SoftechInfosys’ ,

132/Oorampallil,

Kesavanagar,

Kollam 691001.

   (By Adv.AnandBrahmanand)    

2. Manager,

‘Softech Infosys’

      1^st Floor,

Bishop Jerome Nagar,

Chinnakkada, Kollam 691001.:Opposite parties

   (By Adv.AnandBrahmanand)    

ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

On 27.09.2019 the complainant has approached 2^nd opposite party branch officer of the 1^st opposite party Softech Infosys for purchasing a Laptop of  ‘HP’ company having certain specifications and has obtained a quotation for purchasing

the same having value of Rs.42,000/- after advancing Rs.1,000/- on 28.09.2019.Thereafter on 01.10.2019 he has obtained the laptop by paying Rs.40,000/- to 2^nd opposite party after availing the discount of Rs.1,000/- from the quotation amount.But when the complainant obtained bill from 2^nd opposite party he felt certain doubts regarding its specifications and when he enquired of the same the 2^nd opposite party promised that the Laptop given to him is having the same specifications demanded by him.  Due to his doubts regarding the specifications of the Laptop, he examined the same with an expert and he could realize that the Laptop given to him was a law standard one that it was having no such specifications as promised in the quotation which is purely an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The model of Laptop mentioned in the quotation was CF0016TX.  But the laptop hand over to the complainant is having model No.CF0116TU.  Moreover the model number visible in the laptop while it works was CF0XXX and 2^nd opposite party has given 7^th generation laptop having low value model to the complainant instead of giving 8^th generation.Likewisethe opposite party has suppliedlow price panel display monitor instead of giving infinite display monitor.When the complainant enquired about the specifications of the Laptop sold by the same DELL company having same price Rs.41,000/- in another institution, he could realize that the DELL company had complied all the specifications mentioned in their quotation and which is purely an unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  The above act of the opposite partiescaused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to return the cost of the laptop Rs.41,000/- along with 18% interest to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.  Hence this complaint.

Though the opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed vakkalath they have not appeared before the commission nor filed any version.Hence the opposite parties were set exparte.The complainant has filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.P1 to P3, P4 series, P5 and P6 documents.

In view of the unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit coupled with Exts.P1 to P3 documents it is evident that the complainant has purchased a Laptop of HP company for Rs.41,000/- from 2^nd opposite party on 01.10.2019.When the 2^nd opposite party handed over the Ext.P3 tax invoice to the complainant he felt certaindoubts regarding itsspecifications and he examined the Laptop with a computer expert on the very next day of its purchase and realized that the Laptop handed over to him is low quality one than what was actually included in the quotation.In Ext.P1 quotation the model number of Laptop is mentioned as 14-CF0016TX.But as per Ext.P3 tax invoice and Ext.P4 series documents it is evident that the Laptop handed over to the complainant is Hp14s-Cf0116tu model.It is to be pointed out that in Ext.P1 quotation the generation of the Laptop is mentioned as 8^th gen Intel Core i3.But as per Ext.P4 series it can be seen that the Laptop handed over to the complainant is CORE i3 7^th Gen.

According to the complainant though he had demanded monitor having infinite display he has received the Laptop with low value panel display.

In order to ascertain the specifications of the alleged Laptop issued by the DELL company the complainant approached another institution and verified the Laptop sold by DELL company with that of anotherhaving same price Rs.41,000/- he could realize that the Laptop sold by the other institute is possessing all specifications as per the quotation issued by them.

It is clear from Ext.P1 document that this complaint is filed within the warranty period.In view of the reasons stated above we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case that there exists deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get a new Laptop by substituting the substandard one handed over to him or entitled to get its full value as on the date of purchase.

In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

1. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to substitute a brand new Laptop as specified in Ext.P1 quotation within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after receiving back the substandard Laptop sold to the complainant as per Ext.P3 Tax invoice.
2. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused to the complainant due to the sale of substandard quality of the Laptop.
3. The opposite parties 1& 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
4. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to comply with the above direction within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.41,000/- being the value of Laptop +10,000/- being compensation and Rs.5,000/- being costs along with

interest@ 9 % p.a. except for costs from opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the Confidential AssistantSmt. Minimol.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in theOpen Commission this the 10^thday ofNovember 2021.

                                                                                                                                                S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                                                                                                                                           E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                                                                                                            STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

                                                                                          Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                                        Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Complainant filed proof affidavit

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1              : Quotation for Laptop

Ext.P2                          : Receipt voucher for Rs.1,000/- as advance issued by Soft tech Infosys dated 28.09.2019

Ext.P3              : Tax invoice dated 01.10.2019 issued by Soft tech Infosys for Rs.41,000/-

Ext.P4 series    : Photograph of laptop and slips showing model number etc.

Ext.P5              : Copy of specification shown in the laptop while it works

Ext.P6              : Catalogue of DELL company

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Opposite parties  remains exparte