Per:- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT
The Opposite Party No.1 is a partnership firm dealing in sale of electronic goods and computers. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are the partners of the Opposite Party No.1 – Firm.
[2] The Complainant purchased a computer from the Opposite Parties, vide an invoice dtd.10/3/2006, for sum of Rs.37,250/-. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had assured him to install a branded computer. The Complainant states that the computer functioned properly for 20 days and thereafter various problems generated. The computer used to get hang. The Complainant used to call the Opposite Parties and the technicians or the representatives of the Opposite Parties used to attend the Complainant’s office for attending the problem. The computer used to get some snag after 20 to 30 days. Ultimately, the computer became non-functional and inoperative. According to the Complainant, he requested the Opposite Parties to replace the computer, but there was no response from the Opposite Parties. Ultimately, the Complainant served a notice dtd.28/12/2006 to which, the Opposite Parties submitted a false reply. Then, the Complainant filed present complaint for recovery of compensation in sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. [3] The Opposite Parties have filed their joint written version and took stand that the Complainant had placed an order for hardware parts of the computer and not for a branded computer. Thus, an assembled personal computer was sold to the Complainant. This was also mentioned in the invoice submitted to the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties, an assembled computer was delivered to the Complainant in the month of March-206 and till the month of August-2006, the Complainant had no complaint. However, in the month of September-2006, for the first time, the Complainant lodged a complaint for minor problems, which was attended by the Opposite Parties. However, that time the representative of the Opposite Parties pointed out to the Complainant that the problem had arisen on account of lack of knowledge on the part of the Complainant to operate the computer. The Complainant was advised to learn about functioning of the computer and how to operate the same. In the month of November-2006, a modem was installed and then, the Complainant took a tri-band connect from MTNL to use the internet. Thereafter, the problem aggravated. The Opposite Parties advised the Complainant to purchase and install licensed soft-wares. It was time and again explained to the Complainant that there was no fault with the computer and the Complainant should use a licensed operating system as well as antivirus software. Inspite of such suggestions, the Complainant went on using unlicensed soft-wares. In the written version as filed, the Opposite Parties have alleged that the Complainant himself was not conversant with use of the computer. [4] The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written version filed by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant also filed his affidavit of evidence, so also, Mr. Vijay Bheda – the Opposite Party No.2 herein; filed his affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Both the sides filed their respective written notes of arguments. [5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits as well as documents and written notes of arguments filed by the parties. [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 that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service vis-à-vis sale of computer to the Complainant? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover compensation from the Opposite Parties? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [7] Alongwith the complaint, the Complainant himself has produced on the record a copy of Invoice dtd.10/3/2006, under which the transaction in question had taken place between the Complainant, on one hand and the Opposite Parties, on the other. On going through the contents of the invoice, it is seen that the Complainant had purchased a mother-board, CPU, Hard Disk Drive, 256 MB Memory, Keyboard, Cabinet, Monitor, Modem etc. Quantity as well as price of each of the items has been mentioned against each of the items. Total price of all these items was of Rs.35,817.31ps., and on addition of VAT, sum of Rs.37,250/- was paid by the Complainant. Thus, the contents of the invoice clearly reveal that the Complainant had purchased an assembled personal computer from the Opposite Parties. Be it noted that conditions of warranty was not mentioned in the invoice. Name of any branded personal computer was also not mentioned. All these facts show that the Complainant preferred to purchase different hardware components of the computer or rather different components, which are required for an assemble personal computer and from these items mentioned in the invoice, the Opposite Parties assembled a personal computer and delivered the same to the Complainant. As against this, the Complainant, in his complaint, has alleged that the Opposite Parties had assured to sell him a branded personal computer. Be it noted in this context that the Complainant is an advocate by profession and he would not have purchased such assembled personal computer had the Opposite Parties represented to him that they shall deliver to him a branded personal computer. Thus, the contents of the invoice run contrary to the averments in the complaint that the Opposite Parties represented the Complainant that they would sell him a branded personal computer. [8] All these facts are consistent with the reply dtd.22/1/2007, which the Opposite Parties had given to the Complainant’s notice dtd.27/12/2006, copies of which are produced on the record by the Complainant himself at Exhibits ‘C’ & ‘B’ respectively. This shows that the allegations in the written version have not cropped up or surfaced for the first time. It is in the written version filed by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant had no skill of operating a computer and he was not using licensed soft-wares and there was no arrangement for an anti-virus in the said personal computer. These facts also appear in the reply notice at Exhibit-‘C’, referred to above. [9] The Complainant has relied upon an opinion furnished by M/s. Expect Excellence and the Complainant has relied upon the same as an expert opinion. The Complainant has produced the same on the record alongwith his application dtd.6/9/2007. One Mr. Jayesh Sompura, for M/s. Expect Excellence, is alleged to have issued the certificate. The Complainant has not filed an affidavit of said Mr. Jayesh Sompura. Even otherwise, the contents of the certificate show that the expert observed that the computer system was assembled, mother-board was of inferior quality, memory module was of sub-standard quality and the cabinet was of inferior quality. Be it noted that the Complainant had purchased these items from which his personal computer was assembled and having purchased these parts knowingly, the Complainant cannot express grievance that those parts are of inferior quality. Therefore, the opinion given by the expert carries no value. [10] The Complainant had not purchased a branded personal computer. He referred to the personal computer as, ‘Original PC patented by original Microsoft Company’. Now, Microsoft Corporation is not the manufacturer of personal computers, but it is a name of a software company. Upon realizing this error in the complaint, the Complainant extensively amended the complaint to delete such references in the complaint. [12] The Complainant has not produced any evidence on the record to show that the alleged problem with the personal computer still persists and the piece has gone out of order or it is not being used. [13] Having considered all these facts, we find that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite Parties sold him a personal computer of inferior quality and thereby, the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service. With this, we proceed to pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | |
