BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 296/2002 filed on 12..07..2002<br /> <br /> Dated: 16..08..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> Chandramohanan. S.R., Lecturer (Selection Grade), Govt. Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. J. Robinson)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.The President, HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA LTD., Kalkaji, New Delhi – 110 019.<br /> 2.Natasha Gautam, HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA LTD.,Exgen.1, Kalkaji, New Delhi.<br /> 3.The Manager, Benz Computers 34/1884, G.I Padmanabha Chambers, Mamangalam, Cochin – 682 025.<br /> 4.The Manager, Benz Computer World (Benz Computers), Krishna Building, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (Opp. Parties 3 & 4 by Adv. Sri. P. Rajkumar)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 28..07..2008, the Forum on 16..08..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:<br /> This complaint is filed by one Chandramohanan S.R against the opposite parties alleging as follows: The complainant had purchased a H.P. Pavilion 8639 P.C (S/No.SG02862690 Monitor: TH02707578-Printer THOB2 E3 BGY) on 05..12..2000 from the opposite parties. After sometime the complainant found that the items supplied were different from the one stated in the invoice and moreover he was not issued with warranty card also. Complainant further alleges that printer was taken away and it was returned after more than one and a half months. Anomalies in the transaction were brought to the notice of the opposite parties, but no positive action was taken by them. This action of opposite parties in receiving the amount and sending duplicate articles amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for refund of the cost of articles along with compensation.<br /> 2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 remain ex-parte.<br /> 3. 4th opposite party has filed a version for himself and on behalf of 3rd opposite party also contending as follows: Benz computers is a reputed one in the field of computer business. The purchase of the computer is admitted. That the complainant had purchased a H.P. Pavilion 8639 P.C(S/no. S4 02862690 monitor: T.H. 02707578 – Printer: T.H. OB 2E3 BGX) from the 3rd opposite party. It is true that the serial number stated in the invoice is wrong due to typographic mistake. But the computer system supplied by the opposite parties was original bearing serial number for the brand manufactured by the reputed companies. So the allegation against this opposite parties is totally baseless. The serial number in the computer system and number stated in the invoice does not mean that H.P computer sold to the complainant is a duplicate one. At the time of purchase, the complainant had obtained the warranty card from the opposite parties firm and on that behalf the opposite parties had collected the printer from the complainant and no price was charged for that effect. If no warranty was issued this opposite parties would not rectify the defects as suggested by the complainant without any repairing charge. The complainant has been alleged after the lapse of 1 ½ years. Hence it is baseless, the amount claimed by the complainant through this petition from the opposite parties firm is not correct and the intention of the complainant is to defame reputation of these opposite parties in the public. Hence opposite parties prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 5. An expert commissioner has been appointed by this Forum has reported as marked as CW1. The complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 & P2 were marked.<br /> 6. The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> (i)Whether the complainant has been supplied with a duplicate H.P system and whether it is defective?<br /> <br /> (ii)Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?<br /> <br /> (iii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.(i) : There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the computer by the complainant from the opposite parties. The matter to be looked into is whether the items mentioned in the invoice have been supplied to the complainant. The allegations in the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased a H.P Pavilion 8639 P.C (S/No.SG 02862690 Monitor: TH 02707578 – Printer TH OB2E3 BGY) as per Ext.P1 invoice on 05..12..2000. But later on it was found that the opposite parties have supplied a PC with a different serial number (SG 02862745, Monitor: TH02707040, Printer: TH OB 2E 28 B9). The complainant further alleges that he had paid Rs. 60,318/- as value for the HP Computer but the company has cheated him by supplying a duplicate system to make undue profit. Opposite parties 3 &4 in their version have admitted that the serial number in the invoice stated in the invoice is wrong due to typographic mistake but the serial number in the computer system and number stated in the invoice does not mean that the HP Computer sold to the complainant is a duplicate one. At this juncture, the report of the commissioner has to be relied on. In Ext.C1, the commissioner has reported that there is mismatch in the serial numbers of the machine monitor and printer and the speed of the processor has not been mentioned in the invoice. The commissioner further reports that the price of the machine is primarily dependent on the speed of the processor.<br /> 8. The opposite parties have admitted the discrepancies crept in the invoice due to typographical error. But in Ext.P1, it is evident that the speed of the processor is not seen mentioned. But the commissioner has not stated that the system supplied is not that of HP. According to the commissioner there is mismatch in serial numbers etc. but he has nowhere reported that the supplied system is not that of HP make. Moreover, the commissioner was asked to find out the defect in the computer system and as per Ext.C1 it is revealed that there is no defect in the computer system. In the light of the above, we are of the considerable view that a defect free HP computer has been supplied to the complainant.<br /> 9. Point No.(ii) : As per Ext.C1, the serial number of the machine monitor and printer supplied to the complainant are not matching with that which is mentioned in the Ext.P1 invoice. The opposite parties admit the discrepancies in the serial number and contend that the same is due to typographical mistake. It is true that if the serial number differs it does not effect the working conditions of the computer. But it is not evident from the complaint as to what are the difficulties that he had to undergo due to the same. But the opposite parties have a boundant duty to check the items sold to the customers. The complainant has been forced to file this complaint for no fault of his but because of a mistake made by the opposite parties in entering a wrong number on the invoice and the opposite parties have failed to check the discrepancy either at the time of sale. This definitely is an imperfection on the part of the opposite parties. The above acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service for which the complainant has to be compensated.<br /> 10. The complainant further alleges that he has not been issued with the warranty card on purchase. The complainant is a Lecturer and not an illiterate. The opposite parties submit that the complainant had obtained the warranty card from them. At this juncture, it is very hard to believe the complainant that he was not issued with a warranty card on purchase and he did not insist for the same. Moreover, the complainant does not have a case that during the warranty period he has been charged for the services availed by him. In the absence of the evidence we hold that the complainant has failed to establish this point against the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No.(iii) : Taking all the above discussions into consideration we are of the view that, for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has to be compensated and we find Rs. 1,000/- as reasonable compensation towards the same. The complainant has taken out a commission to inspect the matter which has been admitted by the opposite parties. So admitted fact need not be proved by deputing a Commissioner. Hence he is not entitled to refund of the expenses on that account.<br /> In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) along with Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as costs to the complainant within a period of 2 months, failing which the above amounts shall carry 12% interest from the date of the order till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 296/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> 1.Complainant's witness:<br /> PW1 : Chandramohanan. S.R<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : Original invoice No. CST-23035632 dated 01..07..1995 for Rs. 60318/- from Benz computers<br /> <br /> P2 : Copy of advocate notice dated 28..05..2002<br /> <br /> III.Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties' documents: NIL<br /> <br /> V.Court exhibit:<br /> <br /> <br /> C1 : Original commission report submitted by the commissioner.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />