BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 14/10/2011

Date of Order : 30/12/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 563/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The following facts induced the complainant to file this complaint :

The complainant purchased the 512 MB SDRAM from the opposite party on 14-10-2010 at the price of Rs. 950/-. The product was covered by replacement warranty provided by the opposite party. It was replaced once. Again, the replaced product was found to be defective on 24-08-2011. This time, his request for replacement was not accepted by the opposite party on the ground that replacement was allowed once. This has compelled him to approach the Forum seeking replacement and compensation.

2. The opposite party filed version denying the allegation as also claiming that they have goodwill in the market for the past several years. They hold the view that the refusal for replacement for the second time was perfectly justified, because the device produced for replacement was a 'damaged piece.' They also denied the allegation of rude behaviour. In that view, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.

3. No oral evidence for the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The device under dispute was produced in the Forum for verification. No oral evidence for the opposite party too. Ext. B1 was marked for them. Heard the parties.

4. The simple point for resolution is whether the complainant is entitled for replacement along with consequent subsidiary reliefs?

5. The subject matter of the dispute is an electronic device called RAM used in computer. We need confine to the gist of the dispute as it is regarding replacement of the device for a second time eventhough within the warranty period. It is not a matter of dispute that the product was protected by replacement warranty for one year as it was not denied by the opposite party and also they had once replaced the product. The opposite party hold that they were not liable to replace the product once again, since it was in a damaged condition. There is nothing produced before us to prove the same. Moreover, the complainant has produced the article before us for our inspection. The same was examined by us with our naked eye and found that it was in a damaged condition. It is true that the inspection was done with our naked eye and we are not experts in the field of electronics. Even then, we think inspection by layman is enough to detect external defects in the apparatus. Not only that no attempt has been made by the opposite party to refute the allegation. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the device was produced for the second time for replacement within the warranty period of one year.

6. On an overall appreciation of evidence and materials before us, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for replacement of RAM under dispute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the complaint deserves any other relief.

7. Resultantly, the complaint stands allowed as follows :

1. The opposite party shall replace the RAM under dispute with a new one of the same specifications and value.

2. The complainant shall return the RAM under dispute to the opposite party when fresh piece is received.

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 December 2011.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========