KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL. NO.606/12

JUDGMENT  DATED:30.12.2013

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI              : PRESIDENT

M/s Wintech Infosys,

XIX 168, Adam Square,

Church Junction, Aluva Road,                                       : APPELLANT

Angamaly-683 572.

(By Adv: Sri.Jaice Jacob & Others)

            Vs.

Mary Paul,

Padayattil House,                                                               : RESPONDENT

Angamaly.P.O.

(By Adv: Sri.Tom Joseph)

JUDGMENT 

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.607/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, April 30, 2012 directing the opposite party to refund to the complainant the value of defective computer supplied by the opposite party.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant purchased a computer from the opposite party, M/s Wintek Infosys, Angamaly on December 17, 2009 for Rs.23,850/- with one year warranty.   Within 6 months from the date purchase the computer showed some defects which was repaired.  The mother board of the computer was replaced on August 30, 2010.  Subsequently on several occasions ie on February 5, 2011, February 24, 2011 and June 06, 2011 the computer was repaired.  The complainant claimed for refund of the price of the computer with interest and compensation.

3.      The opposite party, M/s Wintek Infosys through its proprietor filed a version contending thus:-  It is an assembled computer which was purchased by the complainant.  Various parts were manufactured by different manufacturers.  The opposite party did not give any warranty to the complainant.  Within 6 months the computer showed some defects which were repaired.  The mother board of the computer was manufactured by a company by name Azus.  The mother board was replaced by the said company.  About 1 ½ years from the date of purchase mother board became defective again which was repaired.  Complainant is bound to take back the computer from the opposite party after paying Rs.750/- being the service charges.

4.      No oral evidence was adduced by both parties.  Exts.A1 to A4 series were marked on the side of the complainant.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and directed them to refund the price of the computer with interest.  Opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

Following points arise for consideration:-

1.   Whether the computer supplied by the opposite party to the complainant is defective?

2.   Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

6.      It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a computer from the opposite party on December 17, 2009 for a price of Rs.23,850/-.  Several times the computer was given to the opposite party for repair.  Complainant would say that the said computer is now in a non-repairable condition.  Ext.A2 series call reports also show that the computer was repaired so many times.  As computer became defective within the warranty period the opposite party is bound to refund the price of the computer to the complainant.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

7.      The Forum directed the opposite party to refund the price of the computer with interest at 12% per annum from the receipt of the copy of the order till realization.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

VL.