IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

            Present: Sri.K.Gopalan                           : President

                         Smt.K.P.Preethakumari              : Member

                        Smt.M.D.Jessy                :  Member

                                       Dated this the  29^th day of March 2010

CC/8/2005

Vijayasree Kalathil,

Kailasam,

Malikaparamba

Near Escotel Tower,

Kadachira, Kannur 670- 621.               Complainant

(Rep. by adv.P.Vimalakumari)

Proprietor,

IET InfoTech,

System & Services,

2^nd floor,Jubilee Bazar,

Onden Road, Kannur 1.                       Opposite party

(Rep. by Adv.T.M.Phalgunan)

O R D E R

Semt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This complaint is filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite arty to give Rs.50000/- as compensation with cost.

            The complainant contended that her computer system became defective while using and informed the IET InfoTech through telephone and they send one Mr.Sujay for servicing the system. As per his representation  that, if there is UPS, there will not be any complaint to hard disc, the complainant purchased a UPS from opposite party on 2.11.04 for an amount of Rs.2100/-. Moreover he has taken the hard disc for servicing on the same day and was installed the next day after servicing, but there is error in audio system

Even though the complainant requested the opposite party to correct it, he left the place after receiving Rs.400/- as service charge without correcting by saying that sound can be downloaded from the Internet. But even though the complainant tried to open the system all are in vein and contact the opposite party for several times. The opposite party has received Rs.400/- as for loading windows 98 in hard disc, which is highly excessive amount. More over after the service of opposite party the system is not in a position to use. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite arty and the opposite party is bound to return the service charge along with compensation. Hence the complaint.

            In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version. Later on the opposite party was absent and hence set exparte.

            The opposite party admits that they have examined the computer of the complainant as per her request on 2.11.04. They also admit that the complainant had purchased a UPS from the opposite party’s shop. They further admits that the service engineer  has advised the complainant to down load the sound from internet and after completing the downloading, the system can be shutdown after checking the audio. But denied the averment that the system was again hanged while downloading and opposite party advised the complainant to try later after some time and again the same thing was happened and there was no response on the part of opposite party etc. They also denied the contention that the opposite party has received an excessive amount of Rs.400/- as service charge. The complaint bought the computer system before 5 years and it has a hard disc having capacity of 1.2 GB. The opposite party had serviced the computer system and was free from all defects. The defect now caused is not due to any deficiency of service on the part of opposite arty and was caused due to the old age of the computer. There is no facility of internet to the complainant’s system and the opposite party had given the advice and instruction and also availed the internet connection. According to opposite party it is very difficult to download internet, since the hard disc has only 1.2 GB space and the computer system of the complainant was hanged due to this at the time of downloading and hence the opposite arty has no liability for the same. The opposite party had  loaded to the computer of the complainant the Windows 98 hard disk, WinZip, winamb and frames. The audio system caused error due to lack of audio driver suitable to the mother board and sound card. The complainant had signed in the service report of the opposite party by saying that the computer is in a good working condition. The opposite party had taken 6 hours to load the soft wares. The  charge for installing one soft ware is Rs.200/- as per the approved rate of all Kerala Information Technologies Association and the opposite party had installed about 8 software’s and hence the complaint is liable to give Rs.2400/- and had given only rs.400/-. The complaint was filed due to the enmity arise where the opposite party demanded for the above said amount of Rs.2000/- and the complainant is entitled to give the above said Rs.2000/- to the opposite party. So there is no deficiency of service of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above contentions the f0ollowing issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by the complaint in lieu of chief examination and exts.A1 to A4 and C1.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            The case of the complaint s that her computer system became defective due to deficient service of opposite party and they charged excess amount as service charge. In order to prove her case she had produced Ext.A1 dt.3.11.04, bill issued as the value of U PS and Hard disc servicing and A2 is the invoice for UPS issued on 2.11.04 and A3 is service report dt.3.11.04 andA4 is  service report dt.2.11.04 and  Ext.C1 the interim report filed by the Commissioner. The opposite party admits that he had serviced the computer system of the complainant and ext.A3 andA4 shows that the opposite party had serviced the computer. Ext.A1 and A2 shows that the UPS was purchased from the opposite party. Even though the opposite party filed version contending that he has no responsibility, the opposite party was not turned up before the Forum to prove his case. In the C1 report the Commissioner reported that the CPU is not working. But he was not in a position to ascertain the reason for non-functioni8ng and for which details checkup is necessary. But no detailed report is before us to ascertain the reason for non-functioning of the system. Any way the commissioner reported that CPU is not working. The opposite party was not turned up before the Forum to prove his case. This itself is a deficiency on the part of opposite party. In the absence of the contra evidence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant. But there is no evidence before us to assess the price of the computer. So we assess the amount of compensation asRs.5,000/- which will meet the ends of justice and the complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1000/- as cost and order passed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation with Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of con summer protection act.

                   Sd/-                          Sd/-                              Sd/-

            President                      Member                       Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & A2.Receipt and the invoice issued by OP

A3.& A4.Copy of the service reports issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite party

Exhibits for the court

C1.Commission report

Witness examined for either side: Nil

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur