IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 29th day of July, 2011
Filed on 03.12.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.340/10
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Smt.Annamma Kurian (Rani), The Proprietor, NOVASOFT Itec Computer
Pathinettinchira, Showroom, 1st Floor, Raiban Shopping
Vadackal.P.O., Complex, Near General Hospital,
Alappuzha. Alappuzha.
(By Adv.Jayan C Das)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainants’ case in succinct is as follows. The complainant on 6th December 2009 purchased a computer for an amount of Rs.28,440/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand four hundred and forty only) from the opposite party. Along with the same a computer table for an amount of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) was also purchased. On the same day itself, one of the supports of the table was broken. Within one week of the purchase of the computer, the same commenced malfunctioning and nonfunctioning. If the opposite party is called up, the service men of the opposite party would come and fetch the computer for repair. Similar course of action continued for six months. There after, the equipment even ceased to turn on. The opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the memory of the computer was burned up. The opposite party charged Rs.1,200/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred only) allegedly for replacing the same while the warranty was in force. Worse still, one of the speakers of the computer turned defective, and notwithstanding the patch up effected by the opposite party the same still remains inoperative. Over and above, the complainant had paid for ‘Intel Original Mother Board’. But the opposite party stealthily served a lesser one. Time and again, one or the other parts of the computer falls imperfect. This recurring defects of the computer system caused both monitory and mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up, and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complainant as to the table was totally baseless. According to the opposite party, the memory of the computer system was burned up as a result of the imperfect earthing of the computer by the complainant. On being complained, the speaker of the system was duly replaced. The Mother Board of the system belongs to the Intel Company, only some difference is there in the brand name, the opposite party contends. The complainant and her friend purchased the system after being convinced as to the features of the same. Till date the complainant is being provided with proper service. The opposite party is still prepared to provide proper service to the complainant. The complaint is baseless. The same is to be dismissed, the opposite party fervently argues.
2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant, and the documents Exbts. Al to A4 were marked. Save filing the version and complainant being cross examined marked as PW1, the opposite party did not let in any additional evidence. The commission Report was marked as C1.
3. Taking into account, the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the computer system the complainant purchased from the opposite party is imperfect?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Concededly, the complainant purchased the computer from the opposite party. The crux of the complainant contention is that the computer system the complainant purchased from the opposite party frequently fell defective. The memory of the same was burned up, and the opposite party charged Rs.1,200/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred only) while the warranty for the system was in force. On top of all these, the ’Mother Board’ of the system was not the one the complainant sought and paid for, the complainant zealously argues. We anxiously went through the materials placed on record by the parties. We carefully perused Exbts. A1 invoice and A2 bill, and more circumspectly the Commission Report. The commission reports emphatically states that the ’Mother Board’ referred to in the invoice and the one delivered to the complainant are not one and the same. Both belong to different company, and there is considerable dissimilarity in their price also. According to the commission Report, the UPS of the system is also imperfect. In this circumstance, it is crucial to notice that the opposite party except making statement does not appear to have adopted any useful steps to discredit the contentions of the complainant or the commission report. It goes with out saying that the complainant case stands well substantiated with supporting pieces of evidence. Resultantly, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In view of the facts and findings herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount deducting 25% from the cost of the computer after retrieving the material computer. The opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and a cost of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) as Cost of the proceedings.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Annamma Kurian (Witness)
C1 - Commission Report
Ext. A1 - The Invoice dated, 06.12.2009
Ext. A2 - The Receipt of the repairing charge Rs.1,200/- dated, 17.07.2010
Ext. A3 - The Notice of the Safety and Regulatory Information
Ext. A4 - The DVD – Windows 7
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:-
Compared by:-
