Date of Filing : 31.01.2011
Date of Order : 11.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 11th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 206/2011
V.C.Jayaramaiah,
S/o.Chikkathimmaiah,
R/a No.L-6, New Lecturer’s Quarters,
Gnanabharathi Campus,
Bangalore University,
Bangalore 560 056.
(By Advocate Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao & others) …Complainant
V/s.
1. M/s Computer Warehouse,
No.710, Barton Centre,
Bangalore 560 001.
Rep. by its authorized signatory.
(In-person)
2. M/s Vaibhav systems & Solutions Ind Pvt.Ltd.,
No.2282/A, ARR NEST,
1st Floor, 6th cross,
Kodihalli,
Bangalore 560 008.
(By Advocate Balaram Law Firm) ….Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OP to replace the entire system with any reputed company system or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.39,975/- are necessary.
1. For his academic purpose the complainant purchased a Desk-top computer on 02.12.2010 Acer Aspire Desktop bearing No.IE-8300B, one Acer 18.5 “TFT Monitor and MS Windows XP Professional Software bearing No.AWS23DS2009422831LE for Rs.34,975/- from the OP1. Within the warranty period there was serious problem in the said computer. It was informed to OP1 who informed the complainant that the OP2 will take care of the service requirements and accordingly on 18.09.2010 the representative of the OP came to the residents of the complainant and verified the computer and said that the mother board is defective, has to be replaced, and he replaced it and took Rs.3,000/- on 18.09.2010. Again similar problem occurred and on 19.11.2010 and representative of the OP2 replaced the mother board. Again on 07.12.2010 the desk top stopped functioning and again on 09.12.2010 the mother board was replaced. The complainant issued notice to the OPs on 24.11.2010 asking them to replace the system with a new one or in the alternative refund the money and pay compensation. As nothing happened. Hence this complaint.
2. a) In brief the version of the OP1 are: OP1 sold the computer to the complainant it had manufacturing warrantee of one year from 02.12.2009. it did not have any problem for 10 months. When the problem arise the engineer sorted out the problem. It cannot be concluded that the product is of inferior quality. After receipt of the notice the OP contacted the complainant and the 2nd OP, requested them to satisfy the complainant.
2. b) The version of the OP2 has been filed, but signed only by the Advocate for the 2nd OP which has not been signed and verified by OP2. Hence it is not summarized.
3. To substantiate the respective cases, the complainant has filed its affidavit. OP2 has filed an affidavit but not sworn by or before anybody. OP1 did not turned up at all.Heard.
4. The point that arise for our consideration are:
A) Whether there is any deficiency in service ?
B) What order ?
5. Our answer is :
a. Positive
b. As per detail order for the following reasons.
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Desk-top computer on 02.12.2010 Acer Aspire Desktop bearing No.IE-8300B, one Acer 18.5 “TFT Monitor and MS Windows XP Professional Software bearing No.AWS23DS2009422831LE for Rs.34,975/- and it had warranty for one year. As the computer stopped functioning within 10 months it was intimated to the OP1. OP1 referred the matter to the OP2 who changed the mother board on 18.09.2010 for Rs.3,000/-, on 19.11.2010 and again on 09.12.2010. That means within one year the mother board had to be changed thrice. This is nothing but manufacturing defect. Mother board will not get damaged so often unless there is defect in the computer itself. The OP1 never denied this manufacturing defect in their version filed on 07.04.2010. Hence OP1 is liable to replace the computer.
7. OP2 is only a service provider who has serviced the computer. There is no relationship of consumer and trader between the complainant and the OP2. Hence no relief could be granted against the OP2. OP2 is in no way responsible for the defect in the computer. Hence we hold the above points and pass the following
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP1 is directed to replace the Desk-top computer with a brand new defect-less computer within 30 days from the date of this Order.
3. If for any reason the OP1 fails to replace the Dest-top computer within 30 days then it shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.34,975/- together with interest at 12% pa from 02.12.2009 until payment within 60 days from the date of this order.
4. OP1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as against this litigation.
5. OP1 is directed to complete with order send the amount as ordered at No 3 and 4 above to the complainant by DD through RPAD and submit to this Forum a compliance report with necessary documents within 75 days from the date of this Order.
6. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
