IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 30th day of March, 2010
Filed on 02/12/2006
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No. 266/2006
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Anil Kumar.R. 1. The Managing Director
Aswathy, Manjadithara Focus Computers
Pallickal P.O. Padmanabha Chambers
Pin – 690 503 Mamangalam, Kochi-682 025
(Adv. P.V. Thomas) (By Adv. Rafeek & Associates)
2. The Branch Manager
Focus Computers Kannamburam Building
M.C. Road, Kottayam
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. Anil Kumar has filed this complaint before the Forum on 2.12.2006 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations are as follows:- On 16.11.2005 he has purchased a personal computer from the first opposite parry, after paying a sum of Rs.23,650/-. He purchased the set in the name of his sister, who is a Research student of the Kerala University, and first opposite party had issued the receipt for the said amount. At the time of the purchase of the set he had also remitted an additional sum of Rs.400/- to the opposite party as service charge. After that within days, the UPS and the printer became defective. Immediately he had lodged the complaint before the Customer Service Centre of the opposite party. After so many requests through telephone; the representative of the opposite party visited and verified the set and rectified the defects. But the defect occurred subsequently and they could not rectify the defects permanently, even though the defect of the set has occurred during the warranty period. The opposite party had collected the amount from him for the replaced item. He submitted a complaint to the Managing Director of the company and their branch office at Kottayam. So far, he has not obtained any positive steps for this matter. Hence this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. First opposite party entered appearance before the Forum and filed objection to the complaint.
3. In the objection, the first opposite party has stated that they have no transaction with the complainant and for that reason, th e complaint is not maintainable. The alleged purchase was in the name of the sister of the complainant and he has no locus standi to file the complaint. It is stated that in the house of the complainant, there is voltage variation of electricity due to the old wiring and low quality equipment. The voltage variation are there and that they have intimated the above matter to the complainant in time. But the complainant had not cared the same while the operating of the set. They have rectified the defects in several times and that was endorsed by the complainant. The complainant had not agreed to rectify any further defects by them, and he is stick on the demand for a new one.
3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this forum has raised the following
issues for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the price of the set?
3) Compensation and costs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- The complainant had filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 and A2 – marked and he has been examined and cross examined by the opposite parties. Ext.A1 is the copy of the letter dt. 12.10.2006 addressed to the first opposite party by the complainant, stating the whole affairs of the matter with request to get back the price of the set, after collecting the defective set from him. Ext.A2 is the tax invoice bill dt. 18.11.2005 issued to the complainant at the time of purchasing the set by him, for a total price of Rs.23,650/-.
5. Opposite parties have filed proof affidavit in support of their case and produced documents – Exts.B1 and B2 – in evidence and Branch Manager of the opposite parties have been examined. Ext.B1 is the satisfactory report dt. 19.5.2007 showing that they have rectify the defects of the set. Ext.B2 is also the report dt. 5.5.2007 showing that they have rectified the defects of the set.
6. As per the request of the complainant, a commission was appointed and the commissioner was filed a detailed report vide dt. 2.11.2009 and marked the same as Ext.C1. After verifying the set in the presence of the parties, the commissioner has reported that the power supply (SMPS) is faulty, Modem is faulty, Printer is faulty and Monitor is faulty. In the report the commissioner has further stated that in order to check the Mother Board and Processor status, he replaced the faulty supply (SMPS) with a new one. It is further stated that the computer is boosting but it gets restarting frequently and this shows the Mother Board is fault.
7. We have carefully examined the details of this case, and verified the documents, and the commission report and deposition of both parties. It is seen that after a payment of a sum of Rs.23,650/- , the complainant had purchase the personal computer from the 2nd opposite party. The second opposite party had issued Ext.A2 document showing the price of the set and their specification. It is alleged that after the purchase of the set, within days, the set became defective, and not working. As per the request of the complainant, the opposite party’s representative have visited the site and rectify the defects. But it occurred again and he could not use the set. Opposite parties have not shown any earnest effort to cure the defects of the set permanently. The complainant had lodged a complaint before the Managing Director of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties are neglected to take further necessary steps to rectify the defects or replace the set. The commission report shows that the major portion of the set is faulty (Ext.C1). In this circumstances, it is to be treated that the set has the manufacturing defects, and the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine. Since the complainant was a bona fide purchaser of the set, he is fully entitled to get the set free of defects, or he is entitled to get the price of the set if the set has the manufacturing defects. In this case, the opposite parties are taken a negligent view in replacing the set with a new or pay back the price of the set in time, to the complainant. The entire facts and circumstances of this case, shows that there is grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties, by way of refusing to release the price of the set to the complainant in time and delay the matter without taking any steps purposefully. The opposite parties are bound to pay back the price of the set, since the purchased set has manufacturing defects. The action of the opposite parties are highly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. The contentions raised by the opposite parties in this case cannot be accepted as a valid and reasonable ground to refusing the request of the complainant to pay back the price of the set. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for this and they are bound to pay the compensation and costs to the complainant for their negligence and deficiency in service. So, after considering the entire facts of this case, we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant are to be treated as genuine and the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, we hereby direct the 2nd opposite party to payback the price of the set ie. 23,650/- (Rupees twenty three thousand six hundred and fifty only) to the complainant, after collecting the defective personal computer set from the complainant and further pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony, pain, inconvenience, loss and physical strain of the complainant due to the unfair trade practice, grossest deficiency and culpable negligence of the opposite parties by way of purposeful denial to rectifying the defects of the set permanently, and refusal to pay back the price of the said set to the complainant in time and delay the matter unnecessarily. We direct the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the 2nd opposite party to comply the order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Anilkumar.R. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the letter dt.12.10.2006
Ext.A2 - Tax invoice bill dt. 18.11.2005
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sobichan Anto Alias (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Satisfactory report dt. 19.5.2007
Ext.B2 - Satisfactory report dt. 5.5.2007
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/F
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
