BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1492/2008 against C.C. 239/2007, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
M. Ramgopal Reddy
S/o. Raja Reddy
H.No. 3-14-197,
Vijayanagar Colony
Near Sahara States, L.B. Nagar
Hyderabad-500 068. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
. And
1) Swetha Computer Bazar
Ground Floor, C.T.C.
Parklane, Secunderabad.
2) The Area Sales Manager
L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd.
I.D.A. Uppal, Hyderabad.
3) The Area Sales Manager
H.P. India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
First Floor, Dega Towers
Above Dogotal Shoppee
Somajiguda, Hyderabad. *** Respondents/
OPs
Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P.
Counsel for the Resp: Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao (R1)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a computer along with printer on 11.3.2006 from R1, which has been selling the products of R2 & R3. At the time of delivery, he was promised that representatives of R2 & R3 would come and install the computer system with printer and would give demonstration for operating it. Accordingly on 12.3.2006 it was installed and a print out copy was taken from the printer by collecting Rs. 300/- from him towards installation charges. When he experienced the problem with printer he complained on which he directed him to take the printer to the service centre . Accordingly he took it to R3. When he took back and tried to take print out he found that the printer was not working well. Despite his repeated requests they did not send any service engineer for explaining the problem. On 10.4.2006 he once again took the printer to R3 and the service engineer who tested it opined that there was no problem with the printer but only in loading the software in the computer. It has to be checked up by R2 & R3. Since the respondents did not rectify the problem despite repeated reminders he got issued legal notice on 8.5.2006 for which no reply was given. Therefore he claimed replacement of computer and printer besides compensation of Rs. 29,500/- together with interest and costs.
3) R1 resisted the case. However, admitted that the complainant had purchased the computer on 11.3.2006 along with printer and necessary equipment. When it was installed by R1 & R2, there was no complaint. It was not aware as to the problem of the printer and interse disputes between the complainant and R2 & R3. It was not aware of the software that was loaded in the complainant’s computer. What was supplied to him was a branded one. If there was any problem, R2 & R3 would be liable for getting it corrected. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) R2 resisted the case alleging that there was no problem with the computer purchased by the complainant. The fault is with the HP printer or its drivers for which it was not responsible. It did not receive any complaint either orally or in writing. After receiving the complaint, it had immediately rectified the defect and replaced the parts without taking any charges as it was within the warranty period. They have been selling 1000 computers per month in Hyderabad, and it did not receive any complaint, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) R3 equally resisted the case. While denying the allegations made against it in the complaint, it alleged that the complainant had not produced any documents like invoice etc., to show that he purchased the computer from an authorized dealer. The obligation of manufacturer arises only when there is defect in the product purchased through an authorized dealer within the warranty period. The complainant did not provide relevant details like Sl. No. of the product ID numbers of the complaints lodged etc. It has got complaint redressal department. At no time he had contacted it in order to get the problem rectified and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked while R1 filed the affidavit evidence of its authorized signatory and R3 filed the affidavit evidence of Sri Ashok Upadaya (Legal Counsel) and did not file any documents.
7) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had failed to establish any defect in the computer supplied by the respondents and therefore dismissed the complaint.
8) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen the very fact that the legal notice dt. 8.5.2006 issued by him was not responded would prove enough that there was defect in the printer, and therefore he prayed that the appeal be allowed.
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
10) It is an undisputed fact that Ex. A1 tax invoice dt. 11.3.2006 would show that he has purchased a personal computer along with printer from R1. For the purchase made by him on 11.3.2006 for the first time by registered notice dt. 8.5.2006 two months there after he issued a legal notice under Ex. A2 followed by complaint on 12.3.2007. There is no reason why the complainant had kept quiet after issuing notice for replacement of the printer, when according to him was not working. It may be stated herein that affidavit evidence of the complainant was equally controverted by the respondents by filing affidavits of concerned officials. The complainant has failed to establish that the printer was not working well and therefore he took it to R2 and despite repeated attempts to rectify the problem they could not do it. When the complainant categorically alleged in his complaint that he had acquaintance with one Mr. Gafoor one of the employees in R1 and Mr. Shyam representative of R2 and Mr. Anil who came and installed the printer and that on 10.4.2006 the service engineer of R3 opined that there was no problem after testing it and there was problem in loading of software, the complainant ought to have filed the affidavits of all those persons to substantiate the said fact. At no time the complainant had mentioned the problem in writing and took acknowledgement of any of these employees. No job card has been filed in order to substantiate that repeatedly one or the other employees of respondents attended for rectifying the defects in the printer.
11) At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that for the purchase made by the complainant on 11.3.2006 for the first time he issued notice on 8.5.2006 and for a period of one year he did not bother to get the problem rectified, obviously to cover up this period he reeled out the facts mentioning some of the employees who said to have tried to rectify the problems. When the complainant was unable to prove that there was defect either in the computer or the printer, the Dist. Forum has no other go than to dismiss the complaint. It is unfortunate that though the parties are highly educated were unable to prove the case, as alleged by them by leading proper evidence, obviously thinking that pleadings would be enough to adjudicate the matter. No steps have been taken in order to prove that the moment the printer was installed the problem had cropped up, and therefore he had repeatedly taken it to respondents to rectify the problem. When there is no evidence whatsoever, more so, when the respondents deny, complaint cannot be allowed on the averments made in the complaint. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 06. 10. 2010
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
