By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Parties to replace the computer and monitor with a new one of the model as entered in the invoice or to refund the price collected from the Complainant and to pay Rs.4,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. The case of the Complainant in brief is as follows:- The Complainant had purchased a Lenova computer from the 1^st Opposite Party for a price of Rs.26,280 on 20.08.2010. Even though the model number of the computer was stated as of 5355 BUQ Destop, the same was not there on the computer and the model itself is different. More over, there is a green spot on the LCD monitor. When it is reported, 3^rd Opposite Party visited the house of the Complainant but did not cure the defect. 3^rd Opposite Party promised to replace the computer when stock arrive. But even after one month, the 1^st Opposite Party not replaced the monitor as assured. Thereafter, the Complainant directly contacted with the customer executive at Bangalore of the Lenova company and a complaint was registered vide ID No.4270083032 on 29.09.2010. At that time the Customer Executive requested to give the serial number of the system, and the Complainant immediately there after furnished the serial number ES 05663774 to him and it was replied that the system having the same serial number has already sold infavour of one Anandavally. The Complainant further stated that the system purchased by him is a second hand one. The Complainant states that the price of the system is Rs.26,250/- out of which, the Complainant paid only Rs.20,000/-. The balance of Rs.6,250/- is to be paid by the Complainant to 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant is ready to pay the amount as soon as the 1^st Opposite Party replacing the old CPU with the new one having the same model number as shown in the invoice and upon substituting the monitor as assured by the Opposite Parties. The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service and thus this complaint is preferred.

3. On receipt of the complaint, notices were served to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared before the Forum and filed version. The 3^rd Opposite Party is set exparte. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A6. The Complainant is examined as PW1. The Expert commissioner filed report and is examined as PW2 and commission report is marked as Ext.C1. Witness for 1^st Opposite party is examined as OPW1, Ext.B1 to B8 is marked on Opposite Party side. Another witness is examined as OPW2. On going through the proof affidavit and documents of Complainant and Opposite Parties, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. What order as to cost and compensation?

4. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit and produced documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A6. The Complainant is examined as PW1. The Expert Commissioner filed report commissioner is examined as PW2 and Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. In Commission Report the Commissioner stated that there is a green spot in the upper middle part of the LCD screen. The Complainant produced the LCD monitor before the Forum and the Forum examined the computer LCD monitor and found that there is a green spot in the LCD Monitor. On examination, it is found that the Model number of the system is Lenova 3000 H 22010028, serial number is ESO5663774. The model number shown in the Ext.A1 Bill Lenova 5355BUQ Desktop. The model number shown in Ext.A1 and the model number when examined in the system are different. According to the Complainant, the system supplied to him is a second hand one which was already sold to one Anandavally. That contention of the Complainant is not correct which is proved when the system was examined before the Forum. Only the model number is different, serial number is one and the same in system and in Ext.A1. From the side of Opposite Party, Anandavally is examined as OPW2 in this case and Anandavally clearly stated that she had purchased a system from 1^st Opposite Party and the same is still with her. Ext.A6 is a photocopy of advertisement displayed in front of the shop of 1^st Opposite Party according to the Complainant. In Ext.A6, the model number shown is 5355BUQ and particulars of the system shown as bright vision verifaces etc are also shown. But the system supplied to the Complainant does not have all these three particulars. So the system supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party does not tally with model number and the above other particulars. More over in the Ext.A1 bill the 1^st Opposite Party showed the model number as Lenova 5355BUQ. That is also different on examination of the system by the Forum, it is found that the model number of the system is 3000H 220 10028. The Opposite Party No.1 filed version and stated that there arised in advertant mistake while preparing the bill ie Ext.A1 by noting wrong model number. The total price for the system is Rs.26,400/-. But the Complainant paid only Rs.20,000/-. A balance of Rs.6,400/- is yet to be paid. The Complaint has been filed only as a retaliatory measure to the demand of the balance amount of sale price. 1^st Opposite Party send lawyer notice to get the balance amount from the Complainant on 11.05.2011. After getting the lawyer notice, the Complainant filed this complaint on 31.05.2011. So according to 1^st Opposite Party, the complainant filed the above compliant only to escape from the liability of the balance amount. Opposite party No.2 filed version stating that 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party. The Complainant examined the commissioner as PW2. The Commissioner in his Ext.C1 commissioner report clearly stated that the green spot seen in the LCD Monitor is manufacturing defect. More over the model number of the system is changed. So by evaluating the entire evidences of complainant and Opposite Parties, the Forum found that the services provided by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant are not proper. Opposite Parties failed to cure the defects even after the complaint is filed within the warranty period. So there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

5. Point No.2 :- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation. Here the forum analysed the fact that the complainant is still using the computer without any problem from 20.08.2010. On examination of the system by the Forum, it is found that the green spot in the monitor is not hindering the usage of the system till now. The Complainant did not pay the entire sale price. He is yet to pay Rs.6,400/- to the 1^st Opposite party. Considering all these facts, the replacement of the system or refund of purchase price is not practical. The Complainant is entitled to get only cost and compensation. The Complainant can use the balance purchase price of Rs.6,400/- for the repair of the system.

In the result, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as compensation to the Complainant for the mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only towards cost of the proceedings. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and severally the above amounts to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of April 2014.

Date of filing:31.05.2011.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Chandrasekharan Complainant.

PW2. Sijo Jose. Programmer, NIC, Kalpetta.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Ashraf Computer Sales & Service.

OPW2. Ananthavally N.C.R.D Collection Agent.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Invoice. Dt:20.08.2010.

A2. Copy of letter. Dt:20.01.2011.

A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:11.05.2011.

A4. Copy of Reply Notice.

A5. Certificate.

A6. Copy of Advertisement.

C1. Commission Report.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Lawyer notice. Dt:11.05.2011.

B2. Acknowledgment.

B3. Postal Receipt. Dt: 11.05.2011.

B4. Copy of Warranty Policy.

B5. Copy of Electronic message.

B6. Copy of mail send by Velurugan.T.

B7. Copy of Invoice.

B8. Lenovo LCD Flat Panel Displays (Commercial and Consumer

Monitors and All-In-One Desktop) – Pixel Policy.