IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.160/2011 (Filed on 07.07.2011)
Between:
Geetha Kumari,
W/o. Gopalakrishna Pillai,
Rohini, Nedumon.P.O.,
Ezhamkulam Village,
Adoor Taluk.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) … Complainant
And:
1. Opel Technology,
Shop No. 19, 1st Floor,
Revenue Tower, Adoor.P.O.,
Rep. by its Manager.
(By Adv. G.M. Iduculla)
2. Ozone Systems,
Ozone House,
YMCA Lane, Kottayam,
Rep. by its Manager.
3. M/s. Redington India Ltd.,
Cochin, Papali Chambers,
42/2152, 1st Floor, Tatapuram,
Cochin – 682018.
(By Adv. V.R. Hari)
4. Gopalakrishna Pillai,
Heavy Bus Driver,
Mowasalat, Doha,
Quatar, P.B.No.1186. … Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: The 4th opposite party is the husband of the complainant. Complainant purchased a computer system with printer from the 1st opposite party and paid ` 33,500. The bill and quotation issued by the 1st opposite party was in the name 4th opposite party, the husband of the complainant and no relief is seeking against him.
3. From the very beginning complainant noted some defect in the computer system and handed over the system to the 1st opposite party and all the time the defects were cured and it was returned after the lapse of 45 days and charged ` 450 each on every occasion. The 1st opposite party has received an amount of Rs.1,800 till this time for the repairing the system. On 14.06.2010 the said system became defective and again handed over to the 1st opposite party and he assured that the defect would be cured and returned to the complainant at the earliest. But 1st opposite party has not materialized till this time. Complainant approached the 1st opposite party to take back the system but he deferred the handing over of the system on one or other grounds. Since it is an assembled system, the 1st opposite party has provided warranty for each and every parts differentiating the period and the matter was clearly mentioned in the quotation also.
4. When the complainant handed over the system to the 1st opposite party for repairing on 14.06.2010, they intimated that the motherboard of the system became defective and complainant should pay ` 2,500 for its repair. Actually the mother board of the system containing three years warranty from the date of its purchase and the complainant entrusted the system to the 1st opposite party within the warranty period therefore 1st opposite party is bound to pursue the warranty provision. The 1st opposite party made to believe that 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the Intel Mother Board and the third opposite party is the servicing agents of the Intel Company and both are liable for the warranty provisions. The system is still in the custody of the 1st opposite party. The non-rectification of the defects in the computer system is deficiency of service and willful violation of the warranty provisions amount to the unfair trade practice. Earlier complainant herself filed C.C.105/2010 before this Forum. Due to some defect it withdrawn with the permission and later filed this complaint.
5. Complainant obtained BSNL internet connection on 29.05.2010. But she could not use the internet connection because of the non-availability of the computer system. She paid ` 2,594 to the BSNL for internet connection even without using the same. Moreover she purchased the computer system for the educational purpose of her children. That purpose also has not been served properly. All this caused mental agony and distress to complainant. Hence this complaint directing to opposite parties 1 to 3 to rectify the defects of the system within a stipulated period of time in accordance with the warranty or to return the purchase price of ` 33,500 with 12%interest and also direct to return ` 2,594 with interest which was paid by the complainant on account of non-used internet connection and compensation of ` 25,000.
6. Opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version. 3rd opposite party has not turned up. Hence they were declared as exparte.
7. 1st opposite party filed separate version stating that complainant has no cause of action against them. According to them, parts of a computer by item Nos.13 were sold on 15.09.2007 to one Gopalakrishnan for ` 32,200. No computer was ever sold as claimed by the complainant. This opposite party is any a seller of the computer parts manufactured by various manufacturing companies. The warranty as per quotation with Gopalakrishnan is “As per manufactures back to back/on site service” (Condition No.2). No facility of any sort was even available against 1st opposite party. Quotation was subject to the conditions of the quotation.
8. No service charge at any point of time was claimed or received by the 1st opposite party. For packing and forwarding of materials to the manufactures, courier charge of ` 450 alone was charged previously. No computer was entrusted to the 1st opposite party on 14.06.2010. The son of Gopalakrishnan brought the following items.
(1) Intel Processor
(2) Intel Mother Board
(3) 1 G.B Memory
(4) Hard Disk
(5) DVD Writer
(6) Cabinet with SMPS for diagnosing the fault.
9. As Intel Mother Board was found defective, it was duly sent to dealer opposite party No.2 who in turn sent to the authorized Intel Service Agency – opposite party No.3 for repairing. But it was returned to opposite party No.2 with reason ‘chip burnt’ on 26.06.2010.
10. There is no delay as claimed by the complainant regarding the attention regarding the attention of the components. The components entrusted after due information regarding the same was never accepted by the complaint. There is no question of any non-delivery of the same. No warranty by 1st opposite party on its own was given by 1st opposite party. The reference regarding ` 2,500 is one for a new board and not one on any other ground. Manufacturer M/s. Intel is not so far made a party to the complaint. The parts with 1st opposite party is always on behalf of the complainant and 1st opposite party has no obligation to repair or replace the parts. There is no cause of action and the allegation is baseless and is barred by limitation. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.
11. 2nd opposite party filed separate version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is no evidence to prove that the said computer was purchased by the complainant. There is no privity of contract between this opposite party and complainant. This opposite party is not the servicing agent of the Intel Company. Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party for mis-joinder of parties. There is no genuine cause of action against this opposite party. Therefore, they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. 3rd opposite party also filed separate version stating that this complaint claiming that the motherboard as defective and seeking refund of motherboard cost without impleading the manufacturer of the motherboard in the complaint. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non-joiner of necessary parties.
13. The authorized service provider for Mother Board manufactured by M/s. Intel Limited inline with the warranty guidelines of the manufacturer Intel. As per the standard guidelines of the manufacturer, customer Induced Defects (CID) are not supposed to be covered under warranty and such products with customer induced defects are not eligible to be treated to be within warranty. It is equally pertinent to highlight here that this opposite party plays no role in defining the warranty guidelines or warranty period in respect of any defects. They were not aware of the purchase transactions between the 4th opposite party and the 1st opposite party and the representation made by the 1st opposite party as this opposite party was not a party to the same. This opposite party is not aware of the warranty said to have been given by the 1st opposite party in respect of the parts in the system.
14. Complainant had never approached this opposite party’s Service Centre at any point of time. The complainant has no privity of contract with this opposite party. This opposite party has been impleaded only as a formal party to the complaint. Complainant had no specific grievance against this opposite party in the complaint. It is an averred that the defective mother board was handed over for repair only to the 1st opposite party. In such a situation, complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party.
15. According to them, there is no guilty of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against this opposite party. The complainant have no specific allegations or claims against this opposite party who is an authorized service provider which clearly establishes that the complainant had never availed any services in the above transaction.
16. The allegation of mental agony, sufferings and distress suffered by the complainant is not attributable to this opposite party. This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. Moreover, this opposite party is unaware of the earlier complaint intimated by the complainant. Therefore complaint against this opposite party is frivolous, vexatious and liable to dismissed. Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
17. For the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
18. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A7. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
19. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. She was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 toA4. Ext.A1 is the quotation form of ` 32,000 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the service report dated 03.04.2010 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A3 is the Internet bill’s photocopy dated 07.07.2010 issued by BSNL. Ext.A4 is the true copy of affidavit of 1st opposite party in c.C.No.105/2010 filed by the complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of version filed by the 1st opposite party in C.C.No.105/2010. Ext.A6 is the attested copy of passport of complainant’s husband. Ext.A7 is the employment certificate of complainant’s husband from the company.
20. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit. He was examined as DW1. Apart from oral evidence has not adduced any documents prove the case.
21. Complainant’s case is that, she purchased a computer system with printer from 1st opposite party by paying ` 33,500. It became faulty within the warranty period and complainant paid ` 1,800 for its repair. Thereafter it again became faulty and complainant entrusted to 1st opposite party and they informed the motherboard of the system is defective. The 1st opposite party informed that the system has warranty provision and 2nd opposite party is the dealer of the Intel Mother Board and 3rd opposite party is the servicing agent of Intel Company and they are liable for warranty provision and 1st opposite party is not liable. The system has not yet rectified and still in the custody of 1st opposite party. Hence this complaint.
22. 1st opposite party’s contention is that they sold parts of computer to one Gopalakrishnan for ` 32,200. This opposite party is only a seller of computer parts manufactured by various companies. The warranty as per quotation with Gopalakrishnan is “as per manufacturers back to back/on site service. They found that Intel Mother Board was defective. They sent to the dealer 2nd opposite party who in turn sent to the authorized Intel service agency 3rd opposite party for repairing. But it was returned to second opposite party with the reason ‘chip burnt’. First opposite party’s stand is that they had no obligation to repair or replace the parts and no warranty of its own.
23. Second and third opposite parties contention is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and them. According to second opposite party, they are not the servicing agent of the Intel Company and the complainant never approached them for any service.
24. On a perusal of Ext. A1, it is learnt that ` 32,000 has been paid for purchasing the computer system from first opposite party. Ext. A2 shows that third opposite party serviced the system on 03.04.2010. Exts. A6 and A7 show that complainant’s husband Gopalakrishnan has been working in abroad on 03.04.2010. According to complainant, she purchased the system and third opposite party issued Ext. A1 to her. As per her instruction, her husband Gopalakrishnan’s name is written in Ext. A1. Evidence on record shows that there is no reason to disbelieve the said contention of complainant.
25. According to first opposite party, they are only a seller of the computer parts manufactured by various manufacturing companies. Material on record shows that first opposite party assembled the parts manufactured by various companies and developed computer system and sold to complainant. As per the settled position, if the products are assembled, it became a new one. In this case, first opposite party assembled the computer parts and it became a new product named computer system. If the said system has not functioning, they cannot escape from the liability merely by saying that they only assembled the parts. It is seen that the system is not functioning and still in the custody of first opposite party. They failed to resolve the matter. It is a clear deficiency of service. Therefore, first opposite party is liable to return the Ext. A1 price with compensation and cost.
26. In this case, opposite parties 2 and 3’s specific contention is that, they have no direct relation with the complainant with regard to the selling of parts. They sold the computer parts to first opposite party and therefore there is no privity of contract with the complainant. We do admit this contention. But opposite parties 2 and 3 are liable to first opposite party for the defect of the sold parts which occurred within the warranty period.
27. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the first opposite party is directed to return the price of ` 32,000 (Rupees Thirty two thousand only) to the complainant. The first opposite party is at liberty to realize the price of parts from opposite parties 2 and 3 if he desires so. First opposite party is also directed to pay ` 1,500 (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as compensation and a cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only). The amount so awarded is to be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 9% interest per annum from this date till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of June, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Geethakumari.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Quotation dated 15.09.2007 for ` 32,000 issued by the 1st
opposite party.
A2 : Service report issued by the 1st opposite party.
A3 : Photocopy of the internet bill dated 07.07.2010 issued by
BSNL.
A4 : True copy of affidavit of 1st opposite party in
C.C.No.105/2010 filed by the complainant.
A5 : Copy of version filed by the 1st opposite party in
C.C.No.105/2010.
A6 : Attested copy of passport of complainant’s husband.
A7 : Employment certificate of complainant’s husband from
the company.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Pradeep. M.P.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Geetha Kumari, Rohini, Nedumon.P.O.,
Ezhamkulam Village, Adoor Taluk.
(2) Manager, Opel Technology, Shop No. 19, 1st Floor,
Revenue Tower, Adoor.P.O.,
(3) Manager, Ozone Systems, Ozone House, YMCA Lane,
Kottayam,
(4) M/s. Redington India Ltd.,Cochin, Papali Chambers,
42/2152, 1st Floor, Tatapuram, Cochin – 682018.
(5) Gopalakrishna Pillai, Heavy Bus Driver,
Mowasalat, Doha, Quatar, P.B.No.1186.
(6) The Stock File.
