BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No.146/2002 Filed on 4/4/2002
Dated: 15..05..2009 Complainant:
Dr. G. Bhadran, Similia Cape Road, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Pradeepkumar)
Opposite party: Mycom System's, T.C.15/2009(1), VRA-20, Women's College Lane, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.
(By Adv. V.K. Radhakrishnan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 04..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The facts that leading to file the complaint are as follows:- The complainant had approached the opposite party for assembling a computer with an intel pentium III 700 MH2 CPU. The opposite party assembled a computer and installed the same along with U.P.S at the complainant's residence on 15/1/2001. The opposite party has charged an amount of Rs.32,000/- by bill No.089 as the cost of parts and accessories for the computer and the same was paid by the complainant. On the day of installation, the opposite party had reiterated to the complainant that the computer was assembled using quality parts and accessories, which had cost more, and that the same would function properly without any problem. The opposite party had given a warranty for 2 years for the computer and all the accessories, that the computer worked without problem but on the second day after installation, the computer failed to work and the complaint was informed to the opposite party through phone and the opposite party's mechanic attended the computer on 17/1/2001 from 7.00 PM to 9.00 PM and the defect was rectified. Again, on 22/2/2001 the computer became defective, and could not be shut down and system was hanging often. The defect was reported on 22/2/2001, 26/2/2001, 2/3/2001, 5/3/2001 and the represntative of the opposite party attended the computer on 6/3/2001 from 6.30 PM to 8.00 PM and again the same was rectified after replacing some parts. On 18/5/2001, the computer again became defective and it stopped working after half an hour of operation and the system also could not be shut down. The information was conveyed to the opposite party's office on 18/5/2001, 23/5/2001 and was attended to by the opposite party's mechanic only on 2/6/2001. Again during July 2001, the computer developed problems. The softwares were lost due to defect of the assembling computer with low quality accessories which was duly informed to opposite party by telephone even dated 12/7/2001, 18/7/2001 & 21/7/2001 and was attended to only on 24/7/2001. During August 2001, the computer stopped working abruptly and could not be shut down. There was also distortion of sound. The same was complained on 18/8/2001, 22/8/2001 and 25/8/2001 and was finally attended to only on 26/8/2001. Again September, the computer failed and stopped within five minutes of its working and it was not able to shut down. The complaint was made on 4/9/2001 and 7/9/2001 and the mechanic who had come to repair on 10/9/2001 could not do it and took the same and returned only on 25/9/2001. The mechanic had opined that the problem was due to the defect in fitting of the cooling fan of the processor and that it resulted in overheat of the process, which may cut the life of the processor. After the repair made on 25/9/2001, the system could not be shut off using the mouse unlike before. The system could be shut off only by the switch which was reported on 26/9/2001, 3/10/2001 and was attended only on 4/10/2001. The computer again started problems from 18/10/2001 and complaint was attended to 7/11/2001 and the computer was again taken to the opposite party's office and the processor was dismantled stating the same was damaged and was asked to replace the same. On believing the same, the complainant bought a new processor and gave the same on 1/12/2001. Again the mother board was to be changed for which the complainant was charged and paid also. The computer was installed back on 22/12/2001. On 24/12/2001, the computer developed problems which was complained on the same day itself and since there was no response, again on 26/12/2001, when the opposite party told that the complainant had done everything possible and that he could do no more. The system stopped on playing games or other operations and it could not be shut down. On enquiry with other Computer Engineers, the repeated failure of the computer was attributed to low quality mother board and other parts used by the opposite party. There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party Mycom Systems filed their version. The opposite party contended that they do not manufacture any accessories of a computer. They stated in the version that the Intel Pentium Processor brought by the complainant for assembling the computer was not a genuine Intel boxed processor. But it was a tray processor, normally rejected from Intel Company and sold in local market smuggled to India. It did not command any guarantee and consequent warranty from the manufacturer. So it is submitted with emphasis that the quality of the processor given by the complainant was very poor and when it was mounted on the mother board it damaged the mother board also. The complainant was fully convinced of inferior quality of the processor. Again the complainant bought another processor of the same type which was also fitted into the computer with the assistance of the opposite party, but without any payment. The complainant was forced to buy one mother board also as it was damaged due to the low quality of the first processor. The mother board supplied to the complainant was priced at Rs.5,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The complainant agreed to pay the amount, has not paid the same till date. He has been postponing the payment of the amount for one reason or the other. The claim has been made in order to avoid the payment. The allegation that on the 2nd day of installation of the computer the same failed and did not work is wrong. The parts used by the opposite party were of high quality and latest, assembled perfectly well. Whenever the complainant wanted the services of the opposite party it was extended free of cost, fully knowing that the processor was disturbing the functioning of the computer. The opposite party extended the service only to get a good business relationship. After the issuance of the notice also the complainant had taken the services of the opposite party for checking and servicing the system and the opposite party found that it was working satisfactorily. The computer was working perfectly well. The technicians of the opposite party inspected the system on 15/1/2002 to find the machine was working well. The allegation in para 7 of the complaint is absolutely wrong. The complainant knew that all the parts used by the opposite party were bought by them from market and they may vary in quality also. At the request of the complainant, the opposite party agreed to assemble a computer for him. The parts were bought for assembling on the full satisfaction of the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant was fully aware of the fact that the mother board was damaged due to the fault of the processor. Therefore he was bound to pay for the mother board. He is now estopped for counter against his own admission. After the assembling of the computer the main parts of the same supplied by the complainant the opposite party had no responsibility to see that it was working. The complainant who has substantial knowledge about a computer was well aware of the fact that a computer assembled using parts collected from various source could not be of perfect quality compared to a computer manufactured and supplied by top ranking manufacturers. The opposite party only extended the labour for uniting the parts supplied by the complainant or collected by the opposite party at the option of the complainant, who has always been closely monitoring and supervising the assembling process. The various dates made mention of in the complaint alleged to be the dates on which problems developed in the computer are cooked up. As the opposite party was not a manufacturer he had no liability nor was there any contract to extend after sale service. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In this case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 5 documents. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite party has not cross examined the complainant and adduced any evidence.
4. In this case this Forum appointed Mr. Anver.A., Asst. Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram as the Expert Commissioner. He filed the report and the report was marked as Ext.C1.
5. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : According to the complainant the repeated failure of the computer was due to low quality mother board and other parts used by the opposite party. To prove his allegation, the complainant has filed petition to examine the computer by an expert. Hence this Forum appointed Mr. Anvar.A., Asst. Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. He examined the computer and filed a detailed report before this Forum. Both parties not filed any objection to the Commission Report.
In the report the Commissioner stated that: The computer is not in working condition. The mother board and/or the CPU is damaged. The mother board used in assembling the computer is of low quality and low cost compared to most of the other alternatives available at the time of assembling the system. The problems mentioned in the petition about the computer's performance are typical of the particular brand of mother board used in the computer. The positioning of the CPU cooler is correct.
And also he stated that the present condition of the computer and its condition as stated in the complaint are not the same. The condition of the computer has worsened since the complaint was filed. In the report he concluded that the specific mother board used in the complainant's computer was not subjected to rigorous technical analysis as the commission was convinced that the problems reported in the complaint were bound to occur with the brand used in the complainant's computer. From this Ext.C1 report we have found that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party are true and correct. All the problems occurred were due to the low quality components used by the opposite party in assembling the computer. At the very beginning the computer was defective and not functioning properly. As per Ext.P1 bill No.089 dated 12/1/2001 the complainant paid Rs.32,000/- to the opposite party for assembling the computer. Ext. P2 is the copy of the advocate's notice dated 5/1/2002 issued by the complainant to the opposite party demanding repayment of Rs.32,000/- being the cost of low quality and substandard parts supplied by the opposite party together with Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Exts.P3 & P4 are the postal records of the notice. Ext.P5 is the reply notice sent by the opposite party. In this case as per Ext.P1 the complainant has paid Rs.32,000/- to the opposite party for assembling the computer with the processor which he supplied. But within a very short period the computer was totally damaged. Though the opposite party obtained a very huge amount for the assembling definitely he should assemble with quality brand mother board and other parts. As per Ext.C1 report the mother board used in assembling the computer was of low quality and low cost and all the problems mentioned in the complaint about the computer's performance are due to the mother board used in the computer.
7. From the above mentioned discussions we conclude that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case with ample evidences. And more over the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. In this case opposite party assembled the computer with low quality and substandard components and the opposite party charged exorbitant amount for that computer. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand only) to the complainant and also shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as cost. Time for compliance one month thereafter the above said amounts shall carry interest @ 12% till the date of realization. The opposite party has the right to take the parts of the computer except the processor after complying the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of May, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.146/2002
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Dr. G. Bhadran II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of cash bill/invoice dated 12/1/2001 for Rs.32,000/-. P2 : Copy of advocate notice No.4/02 dated 5/1/2002 issued by complainant P3 : Postal receipt No.2653 P4 : Postal acknowledgement card
P5 : Reply notice dated 18/1/2002
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
V. Court witness : NIL
VI. Court Exhibit:
C1 : Expert Commission report.
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No.146/2002 Filed on 4/4/2002
Dated: 15..05..2009 Complainant:
Dr. G. Bhadran, Similia Cape Road, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Pradeepkumar)
Opposite party: Mycom System's, T.C.15/2009(1), VRA-20, Women's College Lane, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.
(By Adv. V.K. Radhakrishnan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 04..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The facts that leading to file the complaint are as follows:- The complainant had approached the opposite party for assembling a computer with an intel pentium III 700 MH2 CPU. The opposite party assembled a computer and installed the same along with U.P.S at the complainant's residence on 15/1/2001. The opposite party has charged an amount of Rs.32,000/- by bill No.089 as the cost of parts and accessories for the computer and the same was paid by the complainant. On the day of installation, the opposite party had reiterated to the complainant that the computer was assembled using quality parts and accessories, which had cost more, and that the same would function properly without any problem. The opposite party had given a warranty for 2 years for the computer and all the accessories, that the computer worked without problem but on the second day after installation, the computer failed to work and the complaint was informed to the opposite party through phone and the opposite party's mechanic attended the computer on 17/1/2001 from 7.00 PM to 9.00 PM and the defect was rectified. Again, on 22/2/2001 the computer became defective, and could not be shut down and system was hanging often. The defect was reported on 22/2/2001, 26/2/2001, 2/3/2001, 5/3/2001 and the represntative of the opposite party attended the computer on 6/3/2001 from 6.30 PM to 8.00 PM and again the same was rectified after replacing some parts. On 18/5/2001, the computer again became defective and it stopped working after half an hour of operation and the system also could not be shut down. The information was conveyed to the opposite party's office on 18/5/2001, 23/5/2001 and was attended to by the opposite party's mechanic only on 2/6/2001. Again during July 2001, the computer developed problems. The softwares were lost due to defect of the assembling computer with low quality accessories which was duly informed to opposite party by telephone even dated 12/7/2001, 18/7/2001 & 21/7/2001 and was attended to only on 24/7/2001. During August 2001, the computer stopped working abruptly and could not be shut down. There was also distortion of sound. The same was complained on 18/8/2001, 22/8/2001 and 25/8/2001 and was finally attended to only on 26/8/2001. Again September, the computer failed and stopped within five minutes of its working and it was not able to shut down. The complaint was made on 4/9/2001 and 7/9/2001 and the mechanic who had come to repair on 10/9/2001 could not do it and took the same and returned only on 25/9/2001. The mechanic had opined that the problem was due to the defect in fitting of the cooling fan of the processor and that it resulted in overheat of the process, which may cut the life of the processor. After the repair made on 25/9/2001, the system could not be shut off using the mouse unlike before. The system could be shut off only by the switch which was reported on 26/9/2001, 3/10/2001 and was attended only on 4/10/2001. The computer again started problems from 18/10/2001 and complaint was attended to 7/11/2001 and the computer was again taken to the opposite party's office and the processor was dismantled stating the same was damaged and was asked to replace the same. On believing the same, the complainant bought a new processor and gave the same on 1/12/2001. Again the mother board was to be changed for which the complainant was charged and paid also. The computer was installed back on 22/12/2001. On 24/12/2001, the computer developed problems which was complained on the same day itself and since there was no response, again on 26/12/2001, when the opposite party told that the complainant had done everything possible and that he could do no more. The system stopped on playing games or other operations and it could not be shut down. On enquiry with other Computer Engineers, the repeated failure of the computer was attributed to low quality mother board and other parts used by the opposite party. There was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party Mycom Systems filed their version. The opposite party contended that they do not manufacture any accessories of a computer. They stated in the version that the Intel Pentium Processor brought by the complainant for assembling the computer was not a genuine Intel boxed processor. But it was a tray processor, normally rejected from Intel Company and sold in local market smuggled to India. It did not command any guarantee and consequent warranty from the manufacturer. So it is submitted with emphasis that the quality of the processor given by the complainant was very poor and when it was mounted on the mother board it damaged the mother board also. The complainant was fully convinced of inferior quality of the processor. Again the complainant bought another processor of the same type which was also fitted into the computer with the assistance of the opposite party, but without any payment. The complainant was forced to buy one mother board also as it was damaged due to the low quality of the first processor. The mother board supplied to the complainant was priced at Rs.5,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The complainant agreed to pay the amount, has not paid the same till date. He has been postponing the payment of the amount for one reason or the other. The claim has been made in order to avoid the payment. The allegation that on the 2nd day of installation of the computer the same failed and did not work is wrong. The parts used by the opposite party were of high quality and latest, assembled perfectly well. Whenever the complainant wanted the services of the opposite party it was extended free of cost, fully knowing that the processor was disturbing the functioning of the computer. The opposite party extended the service only to get a good business relationship. After the issuance of the notice also the complainant had taken the services of the opposite party for checking and servicing the system and the opposite party found that it was working satisfactorily. The computer was working perfectly well. The technicians of the opposite party inspected the system on 15/1/2002 to find the machine was working well. The allegation in para 7 of the complaint is absolutely wrong. The complainant knew that all the parts used by the opposite party were bought by them from market and they may vary in quality also. At the request of the complainant, the opposite party agreed to assemble a computer for him. The parts were bought for assembling on the full satisfaction of the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant was fully aware of the fact that the mother board was damaged due to the fault of the processor. Therefore he was bound to pay for the mother board. He is now estopped for counter against his own admission. After the assembling of the computer the main parts of the same supplied by the complainant the opposite party had no responsibility to see that it was working. The complainant who has substantial knowledge about a computer was well aware of the fact that a computer assembled using parts collected from various source could not be of perfect quality compared to a computer manufactured and supplied by top ranking manufacturers. The opposite party only extended the labour for uniting the parts supplied by the complainant or collected by the opposite party at the option of the complainant, who has always been closely monitoring and supervising the assembling process. The various dates made mention of in the complaint alleged to be the dates on which problems developed in the computer are cooked up. As the opposite party was not a manufacturer he had no liability nor was there any contract to extend after sale service. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In this case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 5 documents. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite party has not cross examined the complainant and adduced any evidence.
4. In this case this Forum appointed Mr. Anver.A., Asst. Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram as the Expert Commissioner. He filed the report and the report was marked as Ext.C1.
5. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) & (ii) : According to the complainant the repeated failure of the computer was due to low quality mother board and other parts used by the opposite party. To prove his allegation, the complainant has filed petition to examine the computer by an expert. Hence this Forum appointed Mr. Anvar.A., Asst. Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. He examined the computer and filed a detailed report before this Forum. Both parties not filed any objection to the Commission Report.
In the report the Commissioner stated that: The computer is not in working condition. The mother board and/or the CPU is damaged. The mother board used in assembling the computer is of low quality and low cost compared to most of the other alternatives available at the time of assembling the system. The problems mentioned in the petition about the computer's performance are typical of the particular brand of mother board used in the computer. The positioning of the CPU cooler is correct.
And also he stated that the present condition of the computer and its condition as stated in the complaint are not the same. The condition of the computer has worsened since the complaint was filed. In the report he concluded that the specific mother board used in the complainant's computer was not subjected to rigorous technical analysis as the commission was convinced that the problems reported in the complaint were bound to occur with the brand used in the complainant's computer. From this Ext.C1 report we have found that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party are true and correct. All the problems occurred were due to the low quality components used by the opposite party in assembling the computer. At the very beginning the computer was defective and not functioning properly. As per Ext.P1 bill No.089 dated 12/1/2001 the complainant paid Rs.32,000/- to the opposite party for assembling the computer. Ext. P2 is the copy of the advocate's notice dated 5/1/2002 issued by the complainant to the opposite party demanding repayment of Rs.32,000/- being the cost of low quality and substandard parts supplied by the opposite party together with Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Exts.P3 & P4 are the postal records of the notice. Ext.P5 is the reply notice sent by the opposite party. In this case as per Ext.P1 the complainant has paid Rs.32,000/- to the opposite party for assembling the computer with the processor which he supplied. But within a very short period the computer was totally damaged. Though the opposite party obtained a very huge amount for the assembling definitely he should assemble with quality brand mother board and other parts. As per Ext.C1 report the mother board used in assembling the computer was of low quality and low cost and all the problems mentioned in the complaint about the computer's performance are due to the mother board used in the computer.
7. From the above mentioned discussions we conclude that the complainant has succeeded to prove his case with ample evidences. And more over the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. In this case opposite party assembled the computer with low quality and substandard components and the opposite party charged exorbitant amount for that computer. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.32,000/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand only) to the complainant and also shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as cost. Time for compliance one month thereafter the above said amounts shall carry interest @ 12% till the date of realization. The opposite party has the right to take the parts of the computer except the processor after complying the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of May, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.146/2002
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Dr. G. Bhadran II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of cash bill/invoice dated 12/1/2001 for Rs.32,000/-. P2 : Copy of advocate notice No.4/02 dated 5/1/2002 issued by complainant P3 : Postal receipt No.2653 P4 : Postal acknowledgement card
P5 : Reply notice dated 18/1/2002
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
V. Court witness : NIL
VI. Court Exhibit:
C1 : Expert Commission report.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
