BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1000/2009 against C.C.No.430/2009, Dist.Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
M.Satya Prabhakara Rao, B.Com., LL.B.,
S/o.Sri. M.Ratnaji Rao,
H.No.4-124-1,
Swaroopnagar Colony,
Behind Venkateswara Swamy Temple Road,
Uppal,
Ranga Reddy District – 500 039. … Appellant/
Complainant
And
Global Technologies, 111-115, 1ST Floor,
Chenoy Trade Centre, Parklane,
Secunderabad – 500 003, Represented by its
Authorised Signatory. … Respondent/
Opp.party
Counsel for the Appellant :
Counsel for the Respondent : -
CORAM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.430/2009 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant gave to the opp.party A.M.D. Mother Board of his personal computer-Compaq Company vide Model no.AM 37 –L, Serial No.KAL 3213964 for doing some repairs. The opposite party after effecting repairs collected a sum of Rs.470/- and gave a receipt dt. 21.4.09 certifying that “Repair Status OK. The complainant submits that even after repair his system was not booting and there was no power supply at all. On 22.4.2009 the complainant reported the same to the opp.party over phone who advised him to bring back the CPU for check up and he accordingly handed over the entire unit of CPU to the opposite party on 24.4.2009. On 25.4.2009 the opposite party sent a message that the CPU was not repaired and instructed the complainant to take back the unit stating that ‘MB BGA bad SMPS, CDW to be repaired’ and to that effect the opposite party issued a certificate. The complainant submits that the opposite party negligently handled the CPU unit resulting in serious damage to the mother board and this amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to give the complainant a new mother board of the Compaq company with other necessary CPU components and if the said items of CPU are not available with same configuration direct the opp.party to fix a new Intel Mother Board-965 Model, Intel Processor, Model-Core 2 DUO, Ram D.D.R. 1 G.B., S.M.P.S., Hard Disk. etc. and other related CPU accessories without collecting any amount or in the alternative to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of C.P.U. Unit along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.4.2009 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and to award costs of Rs.10,000/- and legal expenses.
The opposite party inspite of receipt of notice remained absent .
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal
Heard the appellant/party in person. None appeared for the respondent. The complainant/party in person drew our attention to Ex.A1 which is a receipt for ‘repaired material status’ issued by the opposite party in which item given for repair is described as ‘Desktop –AMD Model No- COMPAQ’ with accessories ‘VIA WITH AMD ATHLON 2.0 CPU FAN DUR-1 LANCARD CABLES – 3 HDD(DATA NOT IMPORTANT) FDD CDW DVDW W/O PORTS’ and the repair status is noted as not repaired and it is also noted that ‘MB BGA Bad, SMPS, CDW to be Repaired’. Ex.A2 is also receipt for ‘repaired material status’ of AMD MOTHER BOARD in which repair status is mentioned as ‘O.K’. Ex.A3 is the legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite party dt.27.4.2009 in which the complainant sought for a new Mother Board of the same company for effective functioning of his P.C. or in the alternative to fix a new Intel Mother Board 965 Model and other related equipments for effective functioning of CPU. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of taking CPU for second time for repair he received the message that the C.P. Unit cannot be repaired and advised to collect back the CPU . The party in person submitted that the service centre had not taken due care and also filed before us the technical literature which states that AMD is verified by the AMD Athlon 64 Processor Family . It is apparent on the face of record that the complainant had paid Rs.470/- towards service charges and given the CPU for repair on 21.4.2009 and the opposite party fixed the mother board in CPU and stated that repair status as ‘O.K’. The complainant again reported the same problem on 22.4.2009 and on 24.4.2009 handed over the CPU and on the very next day i.e. on 25.4.2009 the opposite party sent a message that the CPU is not repairable . The contention of the complainant that it was only because of the negligent action of the opposite party at the very first instance of having taken the CPU for repair that he was made to suffer is uncontroverted. Keeping in view the material on record we are of the considered view that the act of the opposite party in collecting the service charges and giving O.K. Status for repair and within 3 days once again stating that the CPU is unrepairable without assigning any reasons, amounts to deficiency in service and hence we are inclined to award the cost of the unit instead of replacement since the models of electronic item change at a fast face. The opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.3000/-
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the CPU unit , compensation of Rs.5000/- and costs of Rs.3000/- within four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.18.1.2010.
Pm*
