KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:77/2001 JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Zenith Computers Limited, Zenith House, 29, MIDC, Central Road, Andheri (E), : APPELLANT Mumbai-4000 093. (By Adv: Sri.S.Reghukumar) Vs. 1.Mr.P.Manoj, Krishna Nivas, P.O.Chemmalassery, Pulamanthole. 2.Mr.Rajesh, Managing Partner, Wintel Associates, : RESPONDENTS KTM Complex, Perinthalmanna. 3.Mr.P.Suresh, Partner, Wintel Associates, KTM Complex, Perinthalmanna. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:13th December 2001of CDRF, Malappuram in OP:346/00. The appellant was the 3rd opposite party and the respondents were the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 in the said OP No:346/00 which was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale of a computer. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version admitting the sale of a computer system to the complainant and denied the case of the complainant regarding sale of defective computer to the complainant. They also denied the alleged deficiency of service. The 3rd opposite party/the manufacturer of the Zenith Computers denied the alleged deficiency of service. 2. Before the Forum below P1 to P11 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and R1 warranty registration card on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint in OP:346/00 directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.48.820/- with interest and cost of Rs.3000/-. Hence the present appeal by the 3rd opposite party who is the manufacturer, Zenith Computers. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/3rd opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the complainant could not succeed in establishing his case regarding manufacturing defect and so the 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer cannot be made liable. Thus, the appellant/3rd opposite party requested for setting aside the impugned order passed against the 3rd opposite party. 4. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:- 1. Whether there was any manufacturing defect in the computer system so as to make the 3rd opposite party/ manufacturer liable for the compensation? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated:13th December 2001 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP:346/00. 5. Points 1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant purchased Zenith Computer from the opposite parties 1 and 2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the managing partners of the firm by name Wintel Associates. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are the dealers of the 3rd opposite party/manufacturer. The case of the complainant was that he paid an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- on 22..7..2000 and the opposite parties 1 and 2 the dealers effected delivery of the unit (computer system) only on 17..8..2000. It is also the case of the complainant that the balance amount due to the opposite parties 1 and 2 was paid on 17..8..2000 itself. Ext.P2 and P3 cash bills would show that the complainant effected payment of Rs.48,820/- to the opposite parties. P4 would show that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the complainant to the 1st opposite party by way of advance on 12..7..2000 and a further sum of Rs.15.000/- on 21..7..2000. That payment was also evidenced by P5 cash receipt issued by the 1st opposite party. So, the case of the opposite parties that the complainant made allegation regarding deficiency of service as and when the balance consideration was demanded cannot be believed or accepted. The documentary evidence on record would show that the entire consideration was paid by the complainant. 6. The Forum below has considered the contentions adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2 and the allegation made by the complainant. The pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 would make it clear that there was defect in the computer system supplied by opposite parties 1 and 2. It is pertinent to note that the complainant specifically alleged that he purchased the computer manufactured by the 3rd opposite party M/s Zenith Computers; but the opposite parties 1 and 2 supplied an assembled version of the computer system. He has also got a definite case that the original CPU of the system was tampered with and some of the original parts were replaced. The aforesaid case of the complainant was not specifically denied by opposite parties 1 and 2. But at the same time, opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the tapering was done by the complainant himself. So, the fat that there was tampering with the original parts of the original Zenith Computer has been admitted to a greater extent. Then, it was for the opposite parties 1 and 2 to establish that tampering was done by the complainant. In the ordinary course, no purchaser of an original computer system would tamper with its own unit. So, the Forum below has rightly concluded that the defective system was supplied by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and some of the original parts of the original Zenith Computer were replaced by opposite parties 1 and 2. In such a situation, the opposite parties 1 and 2 being the suppliers or dealers of the computer was liable to compensate the complainant. The Forum below is justified in making the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant by refunding the price of the computer with interest and cost of Rs.3000/-. 7. The 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer/Zenith Computers. There is nothing on record to show that the 3rd opposite party directly entered into contract of sale the complainant. More over, there is nothing on record to show that the original computer which was supplied by the manufacturer was having any manufacturing defect. The complainant could not establish any deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. In such an event, the 3rd opposite party manufacturer cannot be made liable to compensate the complainant. The facts, circumstance and the documentary evidence on record would show that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 who sold the computer to the complainant. The tampering of the original computer or replacement of some of the original parts were effected by the opposite parties 1 and 2 who alone can be made liable to compensate the complainant. If that be so, the 3rd opposite party is to be exonerated. The points are answered accordingly. In the result the present appeal preferred by the 3rd opposite party in OP:346/00 is allowed. Thereby the order passed by the Forum below against the 3rd opposite party is set aside. But the order passed against opposite parties 1 and 2 is confirmed. Therefore, the appellant/3rd opposite party is exonerated from the liability. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VL. | 
