DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30th day of October 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.36/2010

M. Sukumaran

S/o. Narayanan Ezhithassan

Mullankara House

Ambalapara

Ottappalam Taluk

Palakkad - Complainant

(Adv.C.G. Pramod and Adv. Nisha)

Vs

1. Noby Philip

Faith Computers

Door No.VP IV/1233

TB NH Joint Road

Vadakkenchery (P.O)

Palakkad.

2. The Chief Executive Officer

Hewlett Packard India Pvt Ltd

24, Salupuria Area

Adugadi

Osur Road

Bangalore - 560 030. - Opposite parties

(Adv.G. Jayachandran and Adv.P.G.Sreejith)

O R D E R

By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

The complainant had purchased a personal computer from the 1^st opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.21,690/- on 12/03/2008. The complainant was so particular with regard to the purchase of personal computer system branded as Compaq which is manufactured and marketed by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant had got a reliable information about the product ’Compaq’ manufactured and marketed by the 2^nd opposite party having high quality and high standard. So that the complainant has to purchase all accessories including the Internet modem of Compaq. While purchasing the computer system the complainant had made to believe that a standard and good quality service will be provided by both opposite parties in case any trouble arises in the due

- 2 -

course. The 1^st opposite party has assured that being a high quality product as Compaq computer system, there is only rare possibility for any complaint within a period of minimum 3 years and in case if any such complaint arise a trusted service would be provided to the complainant. The business of the complainant has necessitated to instal a computer system for the smooth running of business and to keep his files up to date and safe. But within a short period after the purchase of the internet modem installed in the CPU showed some sort of complaint and could not avail the internet modem. The complainant had immediately informed the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party had sent service persons two times and could not cure the complaint. The second service person had told the complainant that he had changed the internet modem of computer and installed the internet modem of H P. He had given a bill for Rs.360/- and collected Rs.550/- from the complainant for his service. From that day onwards the entire computer system became inoperative and could not be used for any other purpose. All the functions of computer had become blocked. The complainant had personally met the 1^st opposite party and told him about the complaint and in furtherance he had several times contacted through telephone. Subsequently when the complainant tried to contact with the branch office of the 1^st opposite party at Palakkad to know that he had closed that branch. Thereafter the complainant has tried to contact with the 1^st opposite party he had began to disconnect the phone calls. The complainant honestly believe that both opposite parties are deliberately avoiding from the service assured at the time of purchase of the computer system. Though the complainant had sent lawyer notice dated 10/10/2008 to both opposite parties.

After receiving the lawyer notice both of them have not send reply notice. The complainant could not use the computer system even for a month and now for the last 22 months it rests as a useless item. The act of the opposite parties has resulted in great mental agony for the complainant. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1. replace the computer system which is inoperative and useless and

2. pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages for the injury and mental agony sustained to the complainant.

- 3 -

3. pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss of the complainant

4. pay other expenses met by the complainant.

After receiving the notice the 1^st opposite party was absent before the Forum and was set ex parte. The 2^nd opposite party filed Vakkalath. But no version and affidavit filed by the 2^nd opposite party. There after the 2^nd opposite party filed IA for directing the complainant to furnish the details of the computer. Then the complainant furnished details with documents. Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Exhibit A1 series and A2 marked on the side of the complainant.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2. What is the relief and cost?

Issues I and II

We perused relevant documents on record. As per Exhibit A2 the complainant had purchased a personal computer system from the 1^st opposite party on 12/03/2008 and paid an amount of Rs.21,690/-. According to Exhibit A1 series the complainant had sent lawyer notice to both opposite parties on 10/10/2008 and received the lawyer notice by both parties. The complainant has stated that no reply notice was sent by both opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was served to both opposite parties. Both opposite parties received the notice. But opposite parties not filed version and affidavit. The complainant stated that he could not use the computer system even for a month and now for the last 22 months it rests as inactive. The say of the complainant that he had necessiated to install a computer system for the smooth running of his business and to keep files up to date and safe. But within a short period after the purchase, the internet modem installed in the CPU showed some sort of complaint and he could not avail internet modem. Further the complainant stated that the service persons from the 1^st opposite party changed the internet modem of computer. From that day onwards the entire computer system became inoperative and it could not be used for any other purpose also. The

- 4 -

opposite parties have not produced evidence. According to Exhibit A2 series both opposite parties received the lawyer notice. According to the complainant after receiving the lawyer notice both opposite parties were not replied and not cured the defect in the complaint. 1^st opposite party absent before the Forum and was set exparte. But the 2^nd opposite party was appeared before the Forum. Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party has not filed any version and affidavit. The complainant has not produced the expert commission report to show the defects of the computer. As per order in IA 233/10 the complainant has produced two documents before the Forum. One of the documents as the service bill dated 27/05/2008 stated type of service”format” and signed by the technician. Thus the computer was inspected within a short period. This document was not marked. No contrary evidence was produced by both opposite parties. The opposite parties have not filed version and affidavit. As per Exhibit A1 series and A2 the complainant has purchased the computer from 1^st opposite party and lawyer notice was sent to both opposite parties. Opposite parties have not adduced any contra evidence to that one tendered by the complainant. Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.

In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties. Hence complaint allowed. We direct both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.21,690/- as the price of the computer system and pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order is complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization. Complainant is directed to return the computer system to the opposite parties on receipt of the ordered amount.

Pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of October 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

- 5 -

APPENDIX

Date of filing :16/03/2010

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

1. Ext. A1series – Copy of lawyer notice dated 10/10/2008

2. Ext. A2 - Copy of Invoice of Faith computers for Rs.21,690/-

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings