IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 27th day of February, 2009
Filed on 9.08.2007
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.161/2007
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. K. Balakrishanan 1. Sri. Ajai Chowdhary
Konattuputhen Veedu Chairman and CEO
Cherthala South P.O. HCL Infosystems Ltd.
Alappuzha – 688 552 E-4, 5, 6, Sector – 11, Noida
2. Sri.Jijo, HCL Infosystems Ltd.
Thundiyil Road, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin
(By Adv. Tom C.Kandathil –
For opposite parties 1 & 2)
3. (a) M/s. Novasoft IT Shope
1st Floor, Raiban Shopping
Complex, Near MCH Junction
Alappuzha
4. (b) Sri.Riyas, Servicing Engineer Novasoft, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant for the purpose of his business, on 30th October, 2005 purchased a branded computer system from the 3rd opposite party. The system was provided a warranty for a period of 12 months from its installation. The system developed imperfection during the warranty period itself, and the opposite parties men attended the same during the aforesaid period. The malfunctioning of the computer system was recurring for fourteen times. The complainant, consequently approached the 3rd (a) opposite party, and the 3rd (b) opposite party was sent up for repairing the complainant's system. Without the knowledge of the complainant the 3rd (b) opposite party deactivated the software of the material system. There after, the system was infected with virus and the complete data therein was expunged. This entire trouble took place duly during the warranty period. Though the company attended to the impairments of the system and claimed to have set right the same, the imperfection of the computer system reappeared repeatedly. The complainant purchased the expensive branded system with a view to boost his business prospects, but the complainant could never do any work in the system that engenders income for him. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On sending notice, the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties turned up and filed joint version. The 3rd (a) & (b) opposite parties do not make it a point to turn up before this Forum to fight the complainant’s case. The first two opposite parties contend that no defects developed in the system while warranty was in force. The activation of the antivirus software will sustain only for a period of three months. But on a bonhomous gesture, the opposite parties repaired the system even after the warranty period expired. The attempt of the complainant at present is to get the computer system without payments for the same. The complaint is without any merit. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with exemplary cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties fervently argue.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exts.Al to A33 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the Customer Support Manager was examined as RW1.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the computer system the complainant developed defect right
through the warranty period?
(b) Whether the service of the opposite parties is deficient?
5. Concededly, the complainant purchased the computer system from the opposite parties. The core of the complainant’s contentions is that the system, the complainant so purchased from the opposite parties fell defective time and again right from it s very purchase. The repeated repair and rectification effected by the opposite parties went in vain. Bearing in mind the complainant’s key contention, we zealously went though the materials placed on record by the complainant and the opposite parties. It is to be borne in mind that the computer system in question was purchased on 30th October, 2005. It is not in dispute rather admitted that the warranty is for a period of 12 months. In this way, the warranty was in force up to a period of 30th October, 2006. It is true that the complainant has brought on record voluminous materials to authenticate the complainant’s case. On a closer scrutiny of the said materials, it is seen that amongst the sizeable materials, only Exts.A11 & A14 go on to suggest that the system was taken for service or repair. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid Exhibits are dated after the expiry of the warranty period. Further, it appears that no evidence is forthcoming on the part of the complainant to show that the system developed defective for 14 times, though the complainant reiterated that the system ran out of order for 14 times. It is worthier yet to notice that the complainant does not make it a point to cause the concerned expert to examine the computer to fortify the complainant’s case. The complainant save making statements does not adopt any meaningful steps to prove its case. Merely making statements does not take the place of proof. We regret, we are unable to accept the contentions put forth by the complainant. We hold that the complainant’s case must fail.
In the context of what have been elaborated hereinabove, the complaint is dismissed.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2009.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.Balakrishnan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Cash Bill
Ext.A2 - X press recovery tool license
Ext.A3 - System Analyzer Test Report
Ext.A4 - Configuration details
Ext.A5 - Guarantee card
Ext.A6 - Paper cutting
Ext.A7 - Courier receipt
Ext.A8 - Defect report
Ext.A9 - Courier receipt
Ext.A10 - Defect report
Ext.A11 - Service report
Ext.A12 - Courier receipt
Ext.A13 - Defect report
Ext.A14 - Gate pass HCL
Ext.A15 - Courier receipt
Ext.A16 - Defect report
Ext.A17 - Defect report
Ext.A18 - Defect report
Ext.A19 - Error report of computer received from
Microsoft and Intel corps
Ext.A20 - Disc refragmentation
Ext.A21 - Paper cutting
Ext.A22 - Paper cutting
Ext.A23 - Cost of software details
Ext.A24 - Antivirus details
Ext.A25 & 26 - Paper cutting
Ext.A27 - Importance of 64 bit processor
Ext.A28 - HCL (bundled software)
Ext.A29 - Price & tech. details
Ext.A30 - Belare advisor
Ext.A31 - High & low price details
Ext.A32 - Monitor tech. specification
Ext.A33 - 2 Nos. Economic time newspaper
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bijoy Roy (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
