Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Complainant purchased an assembled computer from the Opposite Party on 24/4/2007 for an amount in sum of Rs.27,000/-. The Complainant got delivery of the same from the Opposite Party. [2] It is alleged by the Complainant that delivery of speakers was given after two days, but the speakers were not properly functioning. Thereafter, the keyboard went out of order. In the month of July-2007 computer went out of order and the engineer sent by the Opposite Party changed the new power chord and collected an amount in sum of Rs.350/- from the Complainant towards service charges. There were frequent disorders and the Opposite Party changed the circuit and collected from the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.350/-. It is further case of the Complainant that the computer was not properly functioning and she was required to give intimation to the Opposite Party and call the engineer. According to the Complainant, the computer supplied by the Opposite Party is defective inasmuch as it required frequent repairs and the Complainant has filed present consumer complaint before this Forum seeking reimbursement of price of the computer in sum of Rs.27,000/- besides compensation in sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. [3] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and denied all the allegations in the complaint as far as alleged defects in the computer. However, the Opposite Party admitted that frequent calls were given by the Complainant, but those calls were attended by the Opposite Party by sending an engineer and there was no deficiency in service on its part. According to the Opposite Party, the Complainant has used the computer for complete one year and thereafter, she has filed the present consumer complaint. In fact, alleged defects occurred in the computer because of mishandling of the computer on the part of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has thus, denied allegations of deficiency in service on its part. [4] The Complainant has filed her rejoinder to the written version filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits of evidence and copies of relevant documents. The Complainant has also filed her written notes of arguments. [5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents filed by the parties as well as written notes of arguments filed by the Complainant. [6] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on account of frequent failures of the computer? | YES | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim refund of price of the computer besides compensation? | NO. However, the Complainant is entitled to get replacement of the computer. | 3. | What order? | The complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [7] Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant has produced on the record a copy of delivery Challan as well as copy of the Invoice, which shows that the Opposite Party received from the Complainant, an amount in sum of Rs.1,000/- towards advance and thereafter, received an amount in sum of Rs.26,000/- and thus, total price in sum of Rs.27,000/- was received by the Opposite Party. A copy of the receipt on the printed form is at page (06) of the compilation of the complaint. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties to the complaint proceeding as regards the payment of entire price in sum of Rs.27,000/- by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. There is also no dispute about delivery of the computer. [8] Turning to the allegations in the complaint, according to the Complainant, the speakers were delivered after two days of delivery of the computer but those speakers were defective. According to the Complainant, she reported the matter to the Opposite Party, but she was informed that the warranty in respect of those speakers was over and the speakers would be replaced only on payment. Thereafter, same speakers were installed by the Opposite Party. [9] Next complaint was in respect of the keyboard. According to the Complainant, it was replaced. This version of the Complainant gets support from the copy of the Service Report dtd.21/5/2007. According to the Opposite Party, there was problem with the keyboard because of mishandling on the part of the Complainant. Copy of the Service Report dtd.21/5/2007, however, does not reveal endorsement about bad or mishandling. It is mentioned there – ‘keyboard bad found, requirement for replace’. The keyboard was replaced vide a Service Report dtd.22/5/2007, a copy of which is produced on the record at page (09) of the compilation of the complaint. [10] According to the Complainant, there was some problem with the power chord and on collecting an amount in sum of Rs.350/- from the Complainant towards service charges, the Opposite Party replaced the power chord. This version of the Complainant gets support from a copy of the service report dtd.28/7/2007, which is produced on the record at page (11) of the compilation of the complaint. [11] Next Service Report is dated 15/10/2007 regarding replacement of the battery, a copy of which is produced on the record at page (13) of the compilation. According to the Opposite Party, battery as well as power chord was replaced. The Opposite Party offered an explanation to the effect that because of electricity fluctuations, the defect had occurred. However, in view of the fact that there is continuous flow of electricity supply at Mumbai and rare power failures or fluctuations, this justification is hardly convincing. According to the Complainant, in or about ‘Diwali’ of the year 2007, entire circuit of the computer was required to be changed because there were frequent failures. These allegations are supported by Service Reports dated 3/11/2007, 7/11/2007 & 7/11/2007, copies of which are produced on the record at pages (15), (16) & (17) of the compilation of the complaint respectively. According to the Opposite Party, such problems had arisen and those were attended by the Opposite Party and necessary repairs were done. [12] In paragraph No.(08) of the complaint, it is alleged that in the month of Jan-2008, computer was giving sound and on intimation, an engineer deputed by the Opposite Party attended and conducted the repairs. Said engineer gave justification that there was no power supply to the computer. Obviously, the justification was strange and not convincing. Service Report dtd.19/2/2008, a copy of which is produced on the record at page (18) of the compilation, shows that there was sound problem and entry in the Service Report shows that sound driver was not installed. Service Report dtd.26/2/2008, a copy of which is produced on the record at page (19) of the compilation, shows that there was software problem and it was installed. According to the Opposite Party, computer had suffered virus infestation and the problem was attended. However, the Service Report dtd.26/2/2008 does not mention about virus infestation. [13] Thus, above-referred service reports, copies of which are produced on the record by the Complainant, support the version of the Complainant that there were frequent failures of the computer and it was required to be attended by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has also not denied such failures, but has taken stand that because of mishandling on part of the Complainant such problems had arisen. However, some of the problems, which were attended by the Opposite Party, as revealed through copies of the service reports, show that those problems could not have arisen because of wrong or mishandling of the computer by the user. Having considered entries in the service reports, we find that quality of those components, which were assembled by the Opposite Party to make a personal computer, was bad which resulted into frequent failures. Naturally, it must have caused serious inconvenience and hardship to the Complainant because the Complainant had purchased the computer for use of her daughter who was well-acquainted with use of computer. Thus, the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. [14] Coming to the question of grant of relief to the Complainant, the Complainant has sought refund of price of the computer in sum of Rs.27,000/-. However, instead of awarding relief of refund of price of the computer, we deem it proper to direct the Opposite Party to replace the computer with another computer of the same make having extended warranty, which was for the original computer or parts thereof. We find that this would meet the ends of justice. [15] Since the direction about replacement of the computer has been given and since, the Complainant would be getting a brand new computer, we find that it is not necessary to award relief of compensation to the Complainant. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party shall replace the existing computer supplied to the computer with a brand new computer of the same make with same components together with extended warranty to the parts thereof, which was for the earlier computer. The Opposite Party shall also pay to the Complainant, costs in sum of Rs.3,000/-. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to comply with the foregoing order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Rest of the claims of the Complainant, stands rejected. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT | |
