BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 02/11/2011
Date of Order : 30/04/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
C.C. No. 607/2011
Between
Mary Paul, | :: | Complainant |
Padayattil House, Angamaly. P.O. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
M/s. Wintek Infosys, | :: | Opposite Party |
XIX 168, Adam Square, Church Junction, Aluva Road, Angamaly – 683 572. |
| (By Adv. Jaice Jacob) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant purchased a computer from the opposite party on 17-12-2009 for Rs. 23,850/- with one year warranty. The computer went out of order within 6 months from the date of purchase of the same which was repaired and returned by the opposite party. Even subsequently, the defects subsisted and it was entrusted with the opposite party on 30-08-2010 for repairs. The mother board was replaced and thereafter on several occasions, on 05-02-2011, 24-02-2011 and 06-06-2011, the opposite party tried to rectify the defects, but they failed. The said machine is in possession of the opposite party. The recurring defect of the computer is due to its manufacturing defect. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the computer with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. together with compensation and costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :
The complainant purchased an assembled computer from the opposite party using various parts manufactured by different manufacturers. The opposite party has not provided any warranty for the same. The opposite party only helps the complainant to avail warranty from the manufacturer of each component. The failure of the computer within 6 months was due to a software failure and the opposite party repaired the same. The complainant was using a pirated version of the windows and the same lead to failure of software and the consignment break down of the system. There hence the system developed a hardware problem. The opposite party rectified the same by replacing the mother board. The complainant at the time of purchase, and thereafter, when the same was brought to the opposite party for repairs repeatedly required had to use a UPS to avoid damage due to power problems. The mother board of the computer was manufactured by a company by name Azus. The Azus company replaced the same. Evenafter, that the complainant did not change the software or support the same with a UPS which went to cause thereafter major complaints. By the time, the warranty provided by the manufacturers had expired. Again, the mother board became defunct after one and a half years from the date of purchase. Since there was no warranty, the complainant is liable to pay cost of the replacement. But at the instance of the complainant, the mother board was sent to an agency by name Blue Chip to get the same repaired. The said agency took time to repair the same and there was no negligence or laches on the part of the opposite party. At that juncture, the complainant demanded refund of the price of the gadget. The complainant is legally bound to take back the computer from the opposite party after payment of Rs. 750/- being the service charges incurred by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 and A2 series were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of the computer refunded with interest from the opposite party?
Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the complainant purchased an assembled computer from the opposite party on 17-12-2009 at a price of Rs. 23,850/- substantiated. According to the complainant, time and again, she had given the computer for repairs admitted. It is stated that finally the opposite party intimated that the same is in non-repairable condition not evidenced. The opposite party maintains that the warranty for each of the components of the computer had been provided by different manufacturers of the same and the opposite party has only assembled the same not evidenced. The opposite party has not produced any evidence as to his deficiency in customer service nor enough proof for the same. In the light of the above, due to the many unsuccessful attempts on the part of the opposite party to repair the gadget and the rightful claim of the complainant that it is irrepairable, and on the failure of the opposite party to disclaim the same for want of proof or evidence which should have been presented before the Forum, we are only to hold to maintain the balance of justice that the opposite party be directed to refund the price of the complainant's computer in his possession.
6. Point No. ii. :- Though a claim for compensation and costs are prayed for there is nothing before us to show that there has been an act of ill feeling or non-co-operation on the part of the opposite party, where which if we should go against would fail justice.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall refund the price of the computer system to the complainant.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2012
Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of retail invoice dt. 09-03-2011 |
“ A2 series | :: | Copy of call reports (4 Nos.) |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
