BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/08/2010

Date of Order : 30/11/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 472/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the case leading to this complaint are :

The complainant purchased a laptop from the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 46,904/-. The 1^st opposite party supplied the same on 03-09-2009 by courier. There was clear mismatch between the quotation supplied by the 1^st opposite party and the tax invoice. The laptop was defective and it was returned to the 2^nd opposite party on 04-09-2009. Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party had delivered an old standby laptop, but defective to the complainant. In the meantime, the complainant by registered letter requested the opposite parties to deliver a brand new laptop as per the specifications in the quotation, but in vain. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget together with compensation and costs. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

The complainant had placed an order for 32 bit laptop computer. The 1^st opposite party provided the complainant with an upgraded system with 64 bit. On receipt of a complaint, the 1^st opposite party deputed their technician to examine the same subsequently, the 1^st opposite party replaced the above laptop with another one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party :

The complainant purchased a laptop directly from the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is only an authorised dealer of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs from the 2^nd opposite party.

4. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the gadget?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

6. Point No. i. :- The parties are in consensus on the following issues :

1. The 1^st opposite party paced Ext. A1 quotation dated 18-08-2009 to the complainant for a laptop and its accessories.

2. The description of the laptop and its accessories as per Ext. A1 is as follows :

Sr. No.	Code	Description	Quantity	Price in Rs.	Line Total Rs.
1	S540811IN8   DFRO4     K815H     X289H       M434H DR464     F930K H198K W634J	S540811IN8 Dell New Studio 15 Laptop -Intel R Core (TM) 2 Duo Processor T 6500 (2.10 GHz/800 FSB/2MB Cache -Genuine Windows Vista (R) Home Premium 64 bit SPI Edition (English) -Genuine Windows Vista (R) Home Premium 64 bit SPI (English) DVD Media Included. QFE for VHP 64SPI -Microsoft (R) Windows Vista (R) Premium Experience Label. User Guide (English) -System Driver Mod -System Driver DVD Kit	1	43,813.00	43,813.00

 

iii. However, the 1^st opposite party delivered a laptop and its accessories to the complainant and its description as per Ext. A2 tax invoice dated 09-09-2009 is as follows :

Part Code	Description	Quantity	Price	Amount
001 S540811IN8   1 K839F       2 M 017R	S540811IN8 – Dell NEW Studio 15 Laptop   -Genuine Windows Vista (R) Home Premium 32 bit SP1 (English/Hindi) DVD Media   -Power DVD Software	1   1     1	43,813.00	43,813.00

iv. The complainant caused Ext. A4 e-mail dated 12-09-2009 and Exts. A5 and A6 letters dated 11-12-2009 and 20-04-2010 to the 1^st opposite party highlighting the difference in the description of the delivered laptop as per Ext. A2 with Ext. A1 quotation.

v. In the meantime, the 1^st opposite party issued Ext. A9 letter dated 11-04-2009 to the complainant expressing their willingness to replace the computer.

7. The complainant contended that when he reported the defects of the laptop, the 1^st opposite party offered to replace the same and till then they have handed over a standby for the use of the complainant. On the contrary, the 1^st opposite party contended that they have only rectified the defects of the laptop not provided with a standby one. There is no evidence to the contrary on either side. So, this Forum does not consider the averments.

8. Evidently, the description of the laptop in Ext. A1 quotation and in Ext. A2 tax invoice are distinctly and different. Contractually, the complainant is entitled to get a laptop and its accessories as per the specifications in Ext. A1 quotation to which the 1^st opposite party had agreed. However, the 1^st opposite party delivered another one of different description failing and falling back on the original acceptance. The above conduct of the 1^st opposite party not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party. This Forum cannot find the situation otherwise. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the laptop from the 1^st opposite party, the laptop applied by him as per Ext. A1 quotation.

9. Point No. ii. :- Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met adequately no order for compensation and costs.

10. In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to deliver a brand new laptop as per Ext. A1 quotation on which the complainant shall return the disputed gadget supplied to him as per Ext. A2 tax invoice to the 1^st opposite party simultaneously.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of November 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========