Date of filing : 06-09-2012
Date of order : 25-05-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.251/2012
Dated this, the 25th day of May 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Selvaraj.J, : Complainant
Ushass, Pannippara, Muttathodi.Po,
Kasaragod. 671123.
(In Person)
Naufal, : Opposite party
Real Computer Company,
New Bus Stand, Kasaragod.
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The brief case of the complainant is that he exchanged his computer on 15-02-2011 which had a complaint on mother board and purchased a computer (CPU) from the opposite party. After one month the cable connected with CPU is blazed and it was informed to the opposite party and he gave another cable. On 25-05-2012 it again blazed and it was out of control and due to it the table, chair, tea poi, UPS, CPU, monitor, speaker, woofer pen drive, scanner, printer and books and records of the complainant which were kept inside the house were also got fire and floor tiles were totally burnt and the wall of the house was destructed and the main slab and the wall of two rooms were cracked. On the next day the complainant herein approached opposite party and two technicians were inspected the site thereafter there was no information from the side of the opposite party.
2. The complainant consulted with a Vastu consultant and he opined that since the fire flared on the Kannimoola room, the entire house itself is not suitable for dwelling and he has to construct another house by demolishing the existing house and the complainant has incurred a loss of Rs.25,00,000/- due to this and the inmates are mentally depressed. The complainant further averred that the article supplied were low quality and cheated the complainant thereby he sustained huge loss and mental agony, the complainant is seeking a relief of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party due to deficiency in service.
3. Notice to opposite party was served and appeared through counsel and filed version contending that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary parties. Since the service is to be provided by the V Guard and mercury company and not by the opposite party in the above case. The opposite party herein contended the allegation that the complainant purchased the computer (CPU) assembled and after one month the cable connected with CPU was blazed and it was informed to the opposite party and he gave another cable and again on 25-0-5-2012 it was blazed and the cable, chair, te poi UPS CPU, Monitor, speaker, woofer, pen dirve, scanner printer books and records which were kept inside the room were got fire and floor tiles were totally burnt and the wall of the house was destructed and the main slab and wall of two rooms were cracked were denied as false. Opposite party further contended that the complainant purchased only one processor in Intel Dual core, Intel DG-41 WW mother board, DDR 3 4GB ram, Mercury Omega cabinet, LG SATA 22 x DVD writer, Graphics AGP, and V Guard UPS from the opposite party and other materials were purchased from some other shop. The opposite party supplied only quality article with specific warranty. Mercury cabinet is of International Brand and available in foreign market. V Guard UPS is also of quality proved material in the market. The complainant had not purchased any cable from the opposite party. The cable is available along with cabinet and the complainant too had cables with him as told by him. It was admitted in the version that on 27-5-2012 that the complainant informed the opposite party that the UPS was not working and the opposite party send servicemen and he saw the system was burnt due to fire. The servicemen and the electrician who inspected the house of the complainant opined that the fire was due to electricity short circuit.
4. The opposite party further submitted that though there is no warranty on burnt item this opposite party on humanitarian consideration expressed his willingness to help the complainant to get the warranty items from the concerned company for which the complainant never turned thereafter. Therefore this opposite party is not at all liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant and prayed for a dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined as PW1. Electrical Inspector, Kasaragod was examined as PW2. Exts A1 to A4 were marked. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit and in lieu of chief examination and examined as DW1. Ext.B1 was marked from his side. Both parties argued the matter. Documents perused.
6. The main allegation of the complainant herein was that he sustained huge loss due to the fire occurred since the opposite party used substandard material for the CPU. Whereas, as per the opposite party the complainant had purchased only Dual core, Intel DG-41 WW mother board, DDR 3 4GB ram, Mercury Omega cabinet, LG SATA 22 x DVD writer, Graphics AGP, and V Guard UPS from the opposite party. Ext.B1 is the tax invoice dt.15-2-2015 issued by the real computer company which is the opposite party herein to the complainant for the purchase of the above mentioned commodities for an amount of Rs.12,900/-. In this case, the complainant had a specific case that he had purchased a computer (CPU) assembled and after one month the cable connected. After one month the cable connected with CPU was blazed and it was informed to the opposite party and he gave another cable. On 25-05-2012 it again blazed and it was out of control and due to it the table, chair, tea poi, UPS, CPU, Monitor, speaker woofer pen drive, scanner, printer and books and records of the complainant which were kept inside the house were also got fire and floor tiles were totally burnt and the wall of the house was destructed and the main slab and the wall of two rooms were cracked. The articles supplied by the opposite party were of low quality and cheated the complainant and he is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for the loss sustained by him due to the deficiency of service from the opposite party.
7. The main question to be decided in this case is what is the reason for fire and loss sustained to the complainant
It is highly pertinent to note that the entire case of the complainant is based on a very crucial document i.e. report of Electrical Inspector, Kasaragod which is marked as Ext.A2 before the Forum. A2 was issued by PW2 who is the electrical inspector, Kasaragod who prepared Ext.A2 on the request of SI of police Vidyanagar with regard to the incident of fire and the loss sustained by the complainant. The most important aspect with regard to Ext.A2 is that the person who conducted the site inspection is not the person who issued certificate Ext.A2. As per the evidence of
PW2 the site inspection was conducted by the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Kasaragod. PW2 had prepared Ext.A2 on the basis of the inspection and the site Mahazer prepared by Assistant Electrical Inspector. But surprisingly the site Mahazer which is the basis of Ext.A2 is not before the Forum. PW2 categorically stated before the Forum that he had prepared Ext.A2 on the basis of the statement of PW1 and site Mahazer. He had further stated that he cannot make a firm opinion with regard to which internal circuit is the reason for blazing of CPU. He further stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say that computer was blazed due to its defect. He further clarified he had written as such only as a possibility for fire. While perusing the report PW2 opined that there is no defect in the wiring of the house of the complainant and there is no possibility of leakage in computer for the reason for fire. But during the last portion he had came to a conclusion that there is possibility of defect in the internal circuit of the computer for a fire. The forum cannot consider Ext.A2 as a piece of evidence in such a situation where there is so many discrepancies arised while going through it and it lacks charity in many aspects also while adducing evidence before the Forum. There is no consistency at all for the reason of fire stated in the particular document. Moreover, the complainant has not taken out an expert to prove his case beyond doubt. The Forum has no doubt with regard to the loss sustained to the complainant on the basis of Ext.A1 but whether the reason stated by him for the fire and the loss is not proved by the complainant. In such a circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation since he failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, as the complainant failed to prove his case, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1.25-5-12 Report given by Kerala Fire Force
A2.13-07-12 Report issued by Electrical Inspector, Kasaragod
A3.23-03-2013 Residential/Ownership Certificate issued by Chengala Grama Panchayath
A4.19-6-14 Residential Certificate issued by Chengala Grama Panchayath to complainant.
B1. Tax invoice issued by Real Computer Company.
PW1.Selvaraja.J
DW1. Mohammed Noufal.CA.
Witness: Joy Jose
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
