DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of March 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) C.C.No.87/2007
Shaji.T. Balan S/o. Balan “ALSE” West Fort Road Palakkad. - Complainant (Adv. P.R. Hariharan & Adv.K.V. Surendran) V/s
1. M/s. Chipset Computers 10/437 Ist Floor, Vas building Near Vetenery Hospital V H Road Palakkad. (Adv. P. Sreeprakash) 2. M/s. HCL Infosystem Limited Corporate Office E – 4,5, & 6 Sector – XI, Noida – 201 301 (U P) 3. M/s. HCL Infosystem Limited Frontline Division Offices No.7, Race Course Road Coimbatore – 641 068 - Opposite Parties
O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President It is the case of the complainant that he purchased HCL2.66GH3(63bit) computer, 256 MB, 80 GBSATA, 17 inch DVD RW, TV Tuner card, Web Camera, HP Printer, 5 Speaker system, codeless mouse and Key Board, 256 MB Pen Drive, four feet table with draw for Rs.49,000/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand) vide bill No.676 dated 01/10/2005 from the Opposite party. The complainant again paid a sum of Rs.838/- as additional charges for fittings 6 channel sound card and 17 inches Antiglare Glass for the above computer on 17.11.2005 vide cash bill No.700 and the 1st Opposite party provided a warranty card bearing No.9699554. The second opposite party is the manufacturer and the third opposite party is the Frontline Division Office of the second Opposite party.
According to the complainant from the date of installation itself the equipment was suffering from several defects. Sound system produced no sound absolutely. After sever requests an - 2 - executive from 1st Opposite party came to complainant's house on 26.09.2006 and removed the CPU of the computer promising to rectify the mistake. So far the CPU has not been returned. Lawyer notice dated 26.10.2006 was issued demanding the same. Inspite of receiving the notice 1st opposite party has neither replied nor returned the CPU. According to the complainant, the appliance manufactured by the 2nd Opposite party is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect. Inspite of being covered by the mandatory warranty, Opposite parties failed to rectify the defects. According to the complainant the act of of the opposite party caused severe financial and mental strain to the complainant. Complainant spend a sum of Rs.50,238/- for the purchase of the appliance and spend Rs.2,000/- for internet connection and makes a payment of Rs.253/- per month for retaining connection through BSNL. The connection became fruitless from 26/09/2006 onwards. According to complainant first, Opposite party has supplied defective goods to complainant and was not ready to rectify the defect within the warranty period. Hence they are liable for deficiency of service also.
First Opposite party filed version. Opposite party 2 & 3 was set exparte. Ist Opposite party admits the purchase of the equipment. But denies the fact that it was defective on the date of installation itself. Ist Opposite party further denies the fact that the sound system installed produced no sound at all. At the time of installation the complainant was present. He has convinced regarding the proper and perfect functioning of the computer and he was satisfied in the performance of the system. If actually the sound system was not working no prudent man will accept such system. No complaint what so ever is received by the opposite party regarding complaint of the system or CPU. Opposite party has not removed the CPU of the complainant to rectify its defects since this opposite party has not even removed the CPU the allegations regarding its failure to return etc is totally irrelevant. Only when the opposite parties received the lawyer notice this allegation was brought to this respondents notice. Later on he has contacted the complainant. He has stated that he has no grievance against the Opposite party and may not be proceeding against the Opposite party and that is why no reply was sent to the lawyer notice.
There is no manufacturing defect or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any order against the opposite party. Oral demand for balance amount provoked the complainant and that is the actual cause for filing this complaint. The amount claimed as compensation is without any basis and is totally on the basis of a guess work. Since there is no deficiency in service complainant is not entitled to get compensation. The evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A4 marked on the side of - 3 - the complainant. Opposite party filed proof affidavit. Commissioner examined the system and filed report. Commissioner report marked as Exhibit C1.
Now the issues for consideration are Whether the goods supplied by Opposite parties are defective? Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite party? If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
Points 1 & 2
The definite case of the complainant is that the whole equipment supplied by the Opposite party is defective and further the CPU removed by first opposite party has not been rectified and returned. Opposite party admit the purchase of the equipments by the complainant. But according to the first opposite party, there is no manufacturing defects in the goods sold. First Opposite party has not removed the CPU of the system for rectification and hence question of returning it does not arise at all.
Complainant has filed an application for appointing expert commissioner which was allowed. Commissioner has neither noted any defects in the equipments supplied. Commissioner merely stated in the report that CPU was not seen at the time of inspection. No defect in the sound system is reported by the complainant. Expert commissioner ought to have noted the defects in the other equipments other than CPU by connecting a spare CPU. Mere statement of the commissioner that the CPU was not seen at the complainant's residence will not lead to inference that it was with the Opposite party. Further complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the CPU was handed over to Opposite party for repair. However purchase of the computer system and other equipments are admitted by first opposite party. A lawyer notice with acknowledgment is seen to be issued to first opposite party which was received by first opposite party. In it, it was specifically stated that the CPU which was removed by officials of first opposite party was not duly returned after rectifying defect. No reply notice is seen to be sent by first Opposite party. From the act of the opposite party, it can be inferred that same has been received by the Opposite party for repairs as it was purchased from first opposite party . Opposite party has not rectified the defect even though it was noted within the period of warranty.
4
In view of the above circumstances, we hold the view that the CPU supplied by first opposite party is defective and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party in not repairing the same. Second Opposite party as manufacturer is also jointly liable with first opposite party. 3rd opposite party being only the Frontline Divisional Office of 2nd Opposite party is exonerated from liability.
Point 3 Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.50,238/- being the purchase price of the equipment together with Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony. Further complainant has stated that he has spent Rs.2,000/- for internet connection and is making payment of Rs.253/- per month for retaining connection through BSNL.
We have found defect only in CPU supplied and none other. Further no piece of evidence is produced by the complainant regarding internet connection and monthly payments. Hence we are of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
In the result, complaint partly allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of March 2009.
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
5 APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Cash bill No. 676 of Chipset computers Ext. A2 - Cash bill No. 700 of Chipset computers Ext A3 - Registered letter from advocate to M/s. Chipset computers Ext. A4 – Warranty card of Chipset Computers.
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Forums Exhibits 1. Ext. C1 – Commissioners Report dated 25th September 2008 Cost (allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
