D.O.F:04/11/2019
D.O.O:16/12/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.215/2019
Dated this, the 16th day of December 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Valsala Vincent
Kizhoor Health Centre,
Chandragiri Post 671317 : Complainant
Kasaragod
(Adv: A. Balakrishnan Nair & C. Krishnakumar)
And
1. One Zero Info systems
Mali Centre, Aswani Nagar,
Near Kasaragod Nursing Home
N.H Kasaragod- 671121
2. Acer Care, : Opposite Parties
Brothers Shopping Complex
Opposite Kailas Theatre
Kanhangad.
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER
The complainant purchased a desktop computer from Opposite Party by paying Rs. 32,200/- on 5/11/2016. At the time of Purchase Opposite Party No:1 assured 3yrs warranty to the computer. On 23/08/2019 the desktop computer stopped its functioning within the warranty period and complainant informed Opposite PartyNo:1 about the same on the next day itself. A mechanic from Opposite Party No:1 visited the house of the complainant and took the mother board of the computer. After several days the technician of Opposite Party No:1 came with the rectified motherboard and installed. On installation it is again became defective. Opposite Party No:1 registered on line complaint and entrusted the computer to Opposite Party No:1 for repair. The grievence of the complainant is that the said computer is not repaired and returned so far. Hence the complainant is seeking refund of the price of the computer with compensation and cost.
The Opposite Party No:1 appeared before the commission and filed version admitting the sale of computer system to the complainant. Opposite Party No:1 further states that warranty was offered only for the defects in the hardware.
The Opposite Party No:2 appeared and filed version stating that he is only a seller and the warranty of the product lies with the manufacturer and Opposite Party is not responsible for it. As per the manufactures terms and conditions it is clearly said that the product under warranty cannot be handled or repaired by an unauthorized person. Opposite Party No:2 further states that he is an unnecessary party to the dispute as per terms and conditions of the sale. Hence manufacturer is the necessary party in the proceedings.
On 26/08/2019 the Opposite Party No:1 received a call from the complaint regarding some problem associated with the product supplied. On receiving the same Opposite Party No:1 registered complaint with the manufacturer of the product M/s Acer India. The companies representative had attended the complaint. Opposite Party No:1 further states that the product is an electronic gadget liable to be brake down at any time due to mishandling, improper electrical connections etc. Another contention raised by Opposite Party No:2 is that as per the terms and conditions of sale it is the manufacturer who is responsible for defects of the product, if any. Hence the manufacturer is the necessary party in the above proceedings.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1 documents produced are marked as Ext A1 and A2. Opposite Parties not adduced any evidence. Heard. The main questions raised for consideration are:-
- Whether Opposite Parties failed to provide proper after sale service to the complainant during warranty period?
- Whether complainant is entitled for relief?
- What is the relief?
For convenience issue No:1 and 2 can be discussed together. Ext A1 is the invoice issued by Opposite Party No:2 to the complainant on 05/11/2016 for Rs. 32,200/-. Ext A2 is the service report issued by Acer care the problem reported in Ext A2 is “not power on”. Action taken is – “M.B Ram processor taken to service centre”. Ext A1 and A2 prove the case of the complainant. The desktop computer purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party became defective during warranty period and M.B Ram processor is taken to the service centre for repair. Complainants allegation is that the same is not returned so far. Opposite Parties filed version but not adduced any rebuttal evidence. In the absence of contra evidence the case of the complainant stands proved. Failure to provide proper service during warranty period is deficiency in service. See 2(r) (ii) in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines unfair trade practice as here under :
r. “unfair trade practice means” a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting.
1. The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation.
2. Falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard quality and quantity.
3. Falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard quality or grade.
In order to promote the sale dealers used to give standard quality of services. But here complainant has not availed after sale service. On the basis of the above discussion we find that there is unfair trade practice as contemplated under Section 2 (r) (I) (V) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Which also amounts to deficiency in service.
Failure to return the product after rectification within a reasonable time amounts to unfair trade practice. Due to non return of the desktop computer after service caused heavy loss and mental agony to the complainant. As the computer became defective complainant is unable to finish his work in time pending work caused severe mental agony, physical stress and loss to the complainant. Hence he is entitled for compensation.
- Relief
The complainant had spend Rs. 32,200/- for the purchase of desktop computer. During warranty period the computer became defective. Opposite Parties failed to provide proper after sale service to the complainant.
In the absence of contra evidence we are of the view that Opposite Party No 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the loss and agony suffered by the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case. Opposite Party No:1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Hence complaint is allowed directing Opposite Party No:1 and 2 to give compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with Rs. 5000/- cost to the complainant.
The time for compliance is thirty days from the receipt of copy of the judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Invoice
A2- Service report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Valsala Vincent
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
