Date of filing : 30-06-2010 Date of order : 24 -09-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 265/09 Dated this, the 24th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Aravindan, S/o. Chandu Kutty, } Complainant R/at “Chothi”, Po. Eriya, Pullur Village, Hosdurg Taluk (In person) The Proprietor, S-Plus Technologies, } Opposite party C.T.Complex, B-06-07, Kanhangad, Po.Kanhangad, Kasaragod.Dt. (Adv. P.K. Chandrashekaran Nair, Hosdurg) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Complainant Aravindan purchased one Lenova Computer with accessories on 8-9-2009 for `26,000/-from opposite party who is the dealer of Lenova computer. The computer was offered with one year warranty. But the computer become defunct after 3 days of installation. Though opposite party was informed about the defects they did not turn up to provide post sale services. Complainant purchased the system for academic purpose of his children and for his personal requirements. He availed loan from District Police Co-op Society for that purpose. The complainant and his children subjected to extreme mental agony due to the ill-working of the system. Hence he filed this complaint with prayers either to replace the system with a defect free one or to refund the purchase price of the entire unit i.e. `26,000/- together with a compensation of `15,000/- and costs of the proceedings. 2. Opposite party filed version. According to opposite party on 2-11-2009 complainant booked his complaint. Since the system is under warranty period nobody except the service engineer of Lenova company can open the system. So the opposite party informed the company about the fault of the systems. The company sent their service engineer on 12-11-2009 and found that the circuit in the mother board is interrupted and broken. The service Engineer replaced the necessary components except one that is to be received from the company. The system became functional as usual. Since the component is covered under warranty company replaced the component. The system is now functioning clearly. The complainant never suffered any damage so as to claim any compensation. The complainant never visited opposite party’s shop after the purchase of the system and opposite party never failed to perform the after sales service. The opposite party is a reputed firm in the field and never indulged in any unfair trade practice. It is due to the complainant’s negligence a minor fault occurred in the system and he persisted to replace the system with a new one. The warranty offered by the company is a service warranty and not guarantee to replace the component. The opposite party is only a supply agent of the manufacturing company. The opposite party is also not liable to replace the system. Any how complainant’s demand is forwarded to the company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party since the company, i.e. manufacturer of the computer is not impleaded in the party array the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. 3. As against the contention of opposite party the complainant alleged that the system is not working. Hence complainant directed to produce the system before the Forum for inspection on 5-6-10. On that day the service engineers attached to opposite party attempted to operate the CPU. But it was found not working. Therefore they opened the CPU and made some repair. Then on repeated attempts the CPU is seen working with an extra ordinary sound. 4. During enquiry complainant submitted that some times on repeated attempts the computer is getting on, but it is not functioning smoothly and frequently. Hence an expert is appointed to inspect the computer and file a report regarding the functioning of the computer. 5. Accordingly expert filed his report. Thereafter complainant filed proof affidavit. In support of his claim Exts A1 to A4 and Expert’s report Ext.C1 is marked. It is pertinent to mention that after the examination of the computer by the expert neither opposite party nor their representative attended the forum during subsequent postings to adduce evidence. 6. Ext.C1 is the Expert’s Report prepared by Sri. Rasheed.M of G-TEC Computer Education of Malakkallu. In the report expert has stated that the system is not in full working condition and though power enters into the system there is no display in the monitor and only after 3-4 times repeated attempts display appear. According to the expert it is due to a computer hardware problem and it is a major problem and the consumer cannot operate the system without the support of a hardware technician. 7. From this report it is clear that the computer is not functioning smoothly and clearly as claimed by the opposite party. Therefore they are guilty for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for supplying a defective computer system to complainant. . 8. The contention of opposite party that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since manufacturer is not made a party is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Pioneer Motors, Kannur (Pvt) Ltd V N.Chandra Winspot Tailors & Another reported in 2010 CTJ 344 (CP)(SCDRC). In that case it has been held that Dealers are usually absolved from liability in cases where manufacturing defects are alleged by the purchaser. This is not a correct approach. The dealers are as much responsible for the sale of the products as their manufacturers. 9. Since opposite party has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary on their side we are inclined to accept the case of the complainant. 10. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the computer with the financial aid of the society in which he is a member. He further stated in his affidavit that the computer was intended for his personal requirements and for the academic purpose of his children. They put to extreme mental agony pain and inconvenience due to its non functioning. 11. We can imagine the pinch one suffer when a new computer became defective in a short span of time especially when it is purchased by availing loan. The complainant is therefore entitled for compensation for the mental agony suffered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority V Balbir Singh reported in 1986-2004 Consumer 8287(NS) has held that compensation can be awarded by the Forum even for emotional sufferings also. 12. Unfortunately in our country our traders and service providers are not yet ready to accept the defects in goods or services when it is pointed out by the consumers. In other countries even if there is aggressive marketing the defective goods are easily replaced when the defects are pointed out. This will make the trader-customer relationship more cordial. The said systems shall be followed in our country also and our traders, suppliers and service providers shall set their mind to accept such a system. In the result complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to take back the entire computer system and refund `26,000/- collected from complainant and pay a compensation of `5,000/- towards the hardships and mental agony he suffered together with a cost of `3,500/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest for `26,000/- @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment. Had the opposite party got a case that the said amount has to be paid by the manufacturer of the computer, then opposite party can recover the said amount from the manufacturer through appropriate legal proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.8-10-09 Photocopy of Receipt an amount of `26,000/-. A2. 8-10-09 photocopy of Retail Invoice. A3.17-11-09 Copy of lawyer notice. A4. Postal acknowledgement card. C1.01-09-10 Expert’s report. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
