Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

677/2009

B.Srinivasulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.S.D.Jain,Devraj computers& another - Opp.Party(s)

party in Person

23 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 26.06.2009                                                                          Date of Order : 09.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.677/2009

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 09^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                                 

B. Srinivasulu,

S/o. Mr. B.V. Seshaiah,

No.W8, VSI Estate,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                       .. Complainant.                                                   

 

      ..Versus..

 

1. Mr. S.D. Jain,

Devraj Computers,

GEE GEE Complex,

No.42, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. Mr. Alok Kedia,

RASHI Peripherals (P) Ltd.,

No.150/92, CISONS Complex,

Montieth Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

          

For complainant                      :  Party in person

Counsel for opposite parties  :  Mr. K.K. Sancheti

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to replace the motherboard, processor, RAM chips (4GB), 160 GB hard disc, to replace the current versions as the rate of obsolesce is very high in the computer / electronics field  and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss with cost of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:               

The complainant submits that he purchased a computer Motherboard from Ranakpur Enterprises on 12.04.2005 having 3 years warranty which expires on 11.04.2008.   During the first week of 2007, the motherboard failed.   Immediately, the complainant contacted the dealer Mr. S.D. Jain in his letter dated:11.07.2007 and the dealer acknowledged the letter of the complainant and requested to bring down the motherboard for service.   The complainant also handed over the motherboard after obtaining acknowledgement on 21.07.2007.  On 25.08.2007, the opposite party returned the motherboard with a remark of ‘oxidation on motherboard & corrosion same returned’ and the opposite party explained that the corrosion motherboard cannot be considered for warranty claims.  Further the complainant submits that the warranty limitation does not exclude the failure due to oxidation which is the cause of the failure as admitted by them in their issue slip.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that the complainant purchased a computer on 12.04.2005 from one Ranakpur Enterprises which is covered by 3 years warranty subject to the terms and conditions of the manufacturer.      Further the opposite parties state that the motherboard failed in the month of July 2007 after 27^th month of purchase and given for repair to the opposite party.    The opposite parties refused to entertain the claim of the complainant under the ground of oxidation on motherboard & corrosion, since the term oxidation not mentioned in the warranty terms and conditions.   The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or replacement.  Further the opposite parties state that there is no relationship of buyer or seller is established between the complainant and the opposite parties.   Hence the complainant cannot claim any relief as a consumer.   Further the opposite parties state that it is an admitted fact that the goods were sold by one Ranakpur Enterprises to one Bhattarams and not in the name of the complainant.  The opposite parties state that the motherboard is manufactured by ASUS TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD which is a leading manufacturer of mother boards used in the computer and is known for its quality, standard etc and the 1^st opposite party is a dealer and 2^nd opposite party is a National Distributor for manufacturer of the said mother boards and they do the replacement of any defective parts provided it falls within the warranty clause since the opposite parties are bound by manufacturer terms and conditions and they cannot take any independent decision.   There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint against the opposite parties is liable to be dismissed.

3. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the Motherboard, processor, RAM chips etc as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.1,500/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavit, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a computer Motherboard from Ranakpur Enterprises as per Ex.A1 on 12.04.2005 having 3 years warranty which expires on 11.04.2008.   During the first week of 2007, the motherboard failed.   Immediately, the complainant contacted the dealer Mr. S.D. Jain in his letter dated:11.07.2007 as per Ex.A2 and the dealer acknowledged the letter of the complainant and requested to bring down the motherboard for service.   The complainant also handed over the motherboard after obtaining acknowledgement on 21.07.2007.  On 25.08.2007, the opposite party returned the motherboard as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 with a remark of oxidation on motherboard & corrosion and the opposite party explained that the corrosion motherboard cannot be considered for warranty claims.   The failures arising out of manufacturing process alone can be replaced or serviced.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for replacement of motherboards and other accessories on the ground that manufacturing process of an equipment shall be protected against corrosion.    Since the opposite party has not applied such protection to the manufacturing product it amounts to deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the warranty limitation does not exclude the failure due to oxidation as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 as such the act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice.  The complainant is claiming replacement of the motherboard and accessories with compensation.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant is a proprietor of Bhattarams receiving all communications to his office address.   

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant purchased a computer on 12.04.2005 from one Ranakpur Enterprises as per Ex.A1 which is covered by 3 years warranty subject to the terms and conditions of the manufacturer.  In this case, the complainant has not impleaded the said Ranakpur Enterprises as a party and has not claimed any relief with him.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the motherboard in the month of July 2007 after 27^th month of purchase and given for repair to the opposite party.    The opposite parties refused to entertain the claim of the complainant under the ground of oxidation on motherboard & corrosion.  Since the term oxidation not mentioned in the warranty terms and conditions as per Ex.A6, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation or replacement.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no relationship of buyer or seller is established between the complainant and the opposite parties.   Hence the complainant cannot claim any relief as a consumer.   

7.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the goods were sold by one Ranakpur Enterprises to one Bhattarams.   Both of them were not arrayed as parties in this case.  The Bhuttarams is a proprietorship has not filed any case.  Equally the seller, Ranakpur Enterprises also not added as a party. The 2^nd opposite party who is the authorised service provider for the product sold by the ‘Asus Technology Private Limited’ is bound to follow the warranty terms and conditions decided by the manufacturer.  In this case, the complainant neither impleaded the manufacturer nor the dealer for claiming such replacement against the specific condition in the warranty.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer and dealer as a proper party.  Equally, the purchaser is M/s. Bhattarams not Mr.Srinivasulu is the sole proprietor.  Hence,  the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 09^th day of August 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	12.04.2005	Copy of credit  bill issued by Ranakpur Enterprises
Ex.A2	11.07.2007	Copy of letter of the 1st opposite party to M/s. Bhattarams
Ex.A3	21.07.2007	Copy of Goods Inward note
Ex.A4	25.08.2007	Copy of goods Outward Note
Ex.A5	16.08.2007	Copy of Rashi Peripheral’s Issue slip
Ex.A6		Copy of policy of warranty as available in their website
Ex.A7		Copy of particulars of Ranakpur Enterprises submitted by Asst. Commissioner in response to the complainant’s application under Right to Information Act, 2005
Ex.A8	13.03.2010	Copy of bill No.28426 dated:13.03.2010
Ex.A9		Photograph showing silica gel in a system currently in use
Ex.A10		Copy of the Passport of Mr. P. Bhattaram
Ex.A11		Copy of channel sales warranty policy provided by ASUS Technology P. Ltd, India for its products

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT