BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1327/2006 AGAINST O.P.No.1156/1995, DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M/s Prime Computers rep. by
Proprietor Mr.L.Ravishankar,
18, Bharath Nivas, Krishna Nagar
Colony, Picket, Secunderabad-500 009
Tel.No.2784 8052. Appellant/
Opp.party
And
N.L.Manihar, S/o.late Sri K.L.Manihar,
Aged 68 years, Occ:Advisor & General
Consultant (Cement Industry)
R/o.305, Swarna Heavens,
Road No.14, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-500 034. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant:M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.
For the Respondent: Mr N.L.Manihar in person.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
ORAL ORDER: (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member.)
***
Aggrieved by the order in O.P.No.1156/1995 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant placed an order with opposite party for supply of Personal Computer system AT 386 along with accessories on 21-3-1994 by paying a sum of Rs.51,000/- through cheque on 25-3-1994. Though opposite party delivered the system, it never worked satisfactorily from the date of installation because of defects in the system. The complainant took the whole system to the office of opposite party many times as the Mother Board and other electronic parts developed serious problems. Thereafter defects also developed in the mouse as well as hard disc drive of the system and due to that the complete installation had to be taken to the office of opposite party for checking and rectification. The service engineer of opposite party informed on 8-3-1995 that there is serious defect in the hard disc and therefore it has to be taken to their office for formatting and therefore the system with Hard Disc No.MCC 052-000354 Model ST 3243A it was taken on 10-3-1995. After the system was brought back to the office of the complainant on 14-3-1995, problems in the system further got aggravated and though the same was brought to the notice of opposite party, no action was taken by them. Finally the hard disc drive crashed and mouse also stopped working and because of inaction of opposite party in violation of terms and conditions of the warranty card and since the system became completely inoperative, the complainant was forced to take the assistance of another agency known as M/s.Info-Sys data products and they gave a report stating that the hard disc was entirely different from the original one. The complainant submitted that from this it is evident that the original hard disc has been changed by opposite party when the system was in their possession between 10-3-1995 to 14-3-1995. Therefore, he addressed a letter dated 17-7-1995 to opposite party seeking replacement of the defective hard disc with original hard disc as well as new mouse or in the alternative for payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as compensation. The complainant submitted that opposite party neither replaced the defective hard disc and mouse nor paid the amount. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to take back the entire defective computer system and refund a sum of Rs.51,000/- together with interest, compensation an costs.
Though opposite party was served and vakalat was filed on its behalf, no counter was filed.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 toA9 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing opposite party to refund Rs.51,000/- to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from 1-4-1994 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.500/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant purchased the computer on 21-3-1994 and warranty was given for a period of one year whereas the complaint was made on 7-3-1995 i.e. just before the expiry of warranty. He submitted that on 8-3-1995 the complaint was attended by them and as there was page maker problem because of installation of illegal page maker, the service engineer informed that the Hard Disc had to be taken to opposite party for formatting. On 10-3-1995 the computer was brought to their office for rectification and returned on 11-3-1995. He submitted that because of installation of illegal pirated software, the hard disk of the computer may be effected and submitted that they never supplied nor installed page maker which gave trouble during March, 1995 and submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the hardware of the computer. He submitted that if there is any manufacturing defect, the problems would be from the first day of purchase and submitted that on 21-3-1994 and 7-3-1995 there were 2 service calls pertaining to battery and the wires problems were attended to and minor complaint wee made on 10-5-1994 and 1-8-1994. He further submitted that the District Forum without appreciating that the complainant is claiming less than 1/5th of the cost of computer directed refund of the cost of entire computer and denied that they changed the hard disk and prayed to allow the appeal.
Respondent filed reply to the memorandum of grounds of appeal along with documents denying that he made the first complaint only on 7-3-1995 and submitted that on 28-4-194 i.e. about a month after the brand new system was supplied, the system was taken to the appellant for complete rectification and thereafter also there were further innumerable problems. He submitted that the system never worked satisfactorily right from the day it was installed and the material on record establish that the system developed serious problems within the warranty period of 1 year only and has not been rectified to his satisfaction. Moreover, the original hard disc was replaced with a second hand hard disc and submitted that the same amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. He denied the allegation that priated soft ware was installed and submitted that all the software available in the system was installed by appellant and submitted that he was forced to take the help of some other agency because the appellant refused to co-operate. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum is a reasoned order and submitted that interest at 12% p.a. is also reasonable in view of interest rates at banks and also for the fact that the complaint was pending for more than 12 ½ years and also prayed to grant additional compensation for the loss and inconvenience caused to him.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased a computer with accessories on 21-3-1994 for Rs.51,000/- and a warranty was given for a period of one year. It is the case of the complainant that serious defects developed in the hard disc as well as mouse and he took the system to the opposite party time and again for rectification. It is his case that an entirely different hard disc than the original hard disc drive was installed in his computer on 10-3-1995 when it was last taken for repairs by the service engineer. The change of hard disc between 10-3-1995 to 14-3-1995 by the opposite party was done without his consent and knowledge. The complainant addressed a letter on 17-7-1995 that replacement of the original hard disc by a second hand defective hard disc and demanded new hard disc but did not receive any reply. It is seen from the record that the complainant continuously corresponded with the opposite party vide Ex.A3, dated 7-3-1995, A4, dated 18-3-1995, A5, dated 23-3-1995, A6 dated 23-3-1995, A7 dated 10-4-1995 and A9 dated 17-7-1995.
It is the case of the appellant that the computer was purchased on 21-3-1994 and the first complaint was made by the complainant just before the expiry of the warranty period on 7-3-1995 and the service engineer informed that the hard disc had to be taken to the opposite party for formatting and the defect was rectified and the system was delivered to the complainant on 11-3-1995. They deny that the system was delivered on 14-3-1995 and submit that it was delivered on 11-3-1995 and contend that the main complaint is of software problem and has nothing to do with the hardware or the mouse. The contention of the appellant that the system did not have any defects and the problem pertains only to software is unsustainable in the light of the appendix to Ex.A9 which are the receipts signed by the opposite party that they have received the said computer and taken it for repairs and the problem is with respect to hard disc. Appendix 6 stated in the remarks column that the problem is repeatedly recurring for the last 10 days and is temporarily rectified and that the system is under observation and seeks the complainant’s co-operation for rectification. Ex.A8 is a letter by Info-sys Data Products dated5-5-1995 in which it is stated that the problem to the hard disc is not normal specially when a servo voltage stabilizer as well as spike buster has already been installed. It is also an admitted fact that the said system was in the period of warranty. The repeated correspondence made by the complainant also states that the problem was not rectified and in fact the hard disc was replaced by a defective hard disc making it extremely difficult for the complainant to use the computer to its capacity. Hence we conclude that the system provided by the appellant is indeed defective. However, we observe from the District Forum record and in the invoice i.e. Ex.A2 that the amount spent on the system excluding the printer and stabilizer is Rs.38,000/- whereas the District Forum has awarded the entire amount of Rs.51,000/-. Hence we modify the order of the District Forum and reduce the amount awarded from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.35,000/- since the system has been used for a considerable period of time, while confirming theother aspects of the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by reducing the amount awarded from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.35,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER.
Dated 31-10-2008.
