IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No. 95/16
Tuesday the 30th day of May, 2017.
Petitioner : Mr. Manoj
Krishnalayam,
Puzhavath,
Changanacherry – 686 102.
(Adv. Anitha V.R)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) M/s. Computer Park
Reptd. By its Proprietor
PMJ Complex,
Near KSRTC Stand,
Changanachery – 686 102
(Adv. Nithin M.K)
2) M/s. Intel Corporation,
Reptd. By its Manager,
CC 39/6501, GF,1,
Kurisupally Road, Ravipuram,
Kochi – 682 015.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 14/02/16 is as follows.
The complainant on 26/07/13 purchased a computer manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 22,300/-. According to the complainant from the beginning itself the said computer showed problems in working that while working it become hanged and after resetting it works only for some time. And in the month of October, 2015, the mother board was taken by the 1st opposite party. But 1st opposite party has not cared to repair the computer or replace the mother board or return the mother board. According to the complainant the problem of the mother board is due to manufacturing defect which was not detected and rectified by the 1st opposite party. And the mother board is having 3 years limited warranty. So many time he approached the 1st opposite party but there was no response. Then on 04/01/16 he had issued a lawyers notice to the opposite parties demanding the defective mother board or deliver a defect free mother board or pay cost of the same. Even after accepting the same 1st opposite party has not cared to consider the matter. According to the complainant the above said act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
1st opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. The authorised service centre of the company is not made as a party in the party array. The averment that the computer showed problems in the beginning itself is false. The computer was working properly and only after 2 years of purchase the complainant approached and lodged a complaint regarding the mother board. Since the product was having limited warranty the same was collected and it was forwarded to the authorised service centre of the 2nd opposite party. And it was returned intimating that the mother board has become defective due to lightning and the product has no manufacturing defect. The Lan Chip inside the mother board is missing and it has happened due to lightning, hence the product cannot be repaired under warranty it was informed to the complainant. The 1st opposite party is only an authorised dealer of the 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party timely acted upon the complaint made by the complainant and handed over the product to the authorised service centre. And there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
2nd opposite party has not cared to appear or file version.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavitof the complainant
and 1st opposite party. And Ext. A1 to A4 documents from the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 document from the side of the 1st opposite party.
Point No. 1
The crux of the complainants case is that the mother boardof the computer supplied from the 1st opposite party, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party become defective within warranty period and 1st opposite party had taken the motherboard and the same was not returned after repair or replace the same. According to the 1st opposite party the defective mother board was entrusted to the authorised service centre of the 2nd opposite party. And it was returned with intimation that the defect is due to lightning. So it cannot be repaired under warranty. The said fact was intimated to the complainant. Nothing has been produced on record by the opposite party to prove that the said defect of motherboard is due to lightning and the same fact was intimated to the complainant. Complainant produced the retail invoice dated 26/06/2013 issued by the 1st opposite party and the same is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the price of the motherboard is Rs. 3050/-. In our view, act of opposite parties in not repairing or replacing the motherboard of the complainant’s computer during its warranty period amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the said act of opposite parties complainant had suffered much mental pain and loss. So he is to be compensated . Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, complaint is allowed.
In the result:
- Opposite parties are ordered to replace the motherboard of the complainants computer or pay Rs. 3050/-, the price of the motherboard to the complainant.
2) .Opposite parties are ordered to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of copy order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2017.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, PresidentSd/-
Hon’ble Mrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, MemberSd/-
Appendix
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1:Copy of Invoice No. Park 3842 Dtd: 26/06/13
Ext. A2: Guarantee Card / Book.
Ext. A3: Copy of Lawyers Notice Dtd: 04/01/16.
Ext. A4: Postal receipt.
Documents for the opposite parties
Ext. B1: CWP Customer Tag.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
