CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present. Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.
CC.No.99/09 Saturday, the day of 26th, September, 2009.
Petitioner Nizha.U.K. Uma Bhavan Mamuri.P.O. Kuruppanthara, Kottayam. Vs. Opposite parties. 1. Online IT Shop K.S.C.D.R.D.A.Building Nagambadom. Tessil, M.C.Road, Kottayam. 2. Proprietor I.T.Shop, K.S.C.D.R.D.A. Building, Nagambadom Tessil, Temple, M.C.Road, Kottayam. 3. Proprietor Online, I.T.Shop K.S.C.D.A.R.D.A. Building, Nagambadom Tessil, M.C.Road, Kottayam. O R D E R Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows. She had purchased a computer and the asscessories from the opposite parties on 13.2.2007 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the help and sanction of loan from the Kerala State scheduled caste and scheduled Tribe Development Corporation ie. Bos/5/06-07/KTM. Before sanctioning the -2- loan the complainant made enquiries with the opposite party for purchasing the computor, they give heavy offer to the complaint ie. Table, T-shirt etc.) Hence the complainant purchased the computer and accessories given to sanctioning of the loan. The computer has not working properly even one hour after purchase. There was no display even the day of instalation. The opposite parties admits that it was minor problem it will be rectified. But on 22/11/07 within the period of warranty the mother board, memory etc. because defective. The opposite party came and taken the mother board and memory for repairs. After 4 months the same was returned. The same defects was occurred regently. On 6/2/2009 the complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties stating all reasons and want of compensation. But there was reply from the opposite parties. There was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The opposite party has already given the offer to the complainant which was under the scheme. The Engineer of the opposite party submits that there was no proper earthing. The complaint was made by the complainant only after one year of its purchase. The opposite party has provide stand by system if the complaint occurred during the period of warranty, if the customer demands. The complainant has using the computer and the complaint point out by her the opposite party has rectified the same properly. After receiving the registered notice the opposite party and complainant has talked in the phone and the opposite party told that if any problem in the computer it will be rectified if -3- the computer entrusted with the opposite party. The opposite parties admits that they are ready and willing to rectify the computer if any defects in the computer provided the complainant has to meet normal expenses for the parts if any needed. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A5. The opposite party filed proof affidavit. Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the computer became defective and it has not rectified by the opposite party. According to her the same defects was occurred repeatedly. The opposite party has taken a contention that the complainant's computer was working properly and any complaint made by the complaint the opposite party had rectified the same. According to them there was not proper earthing at the time of installation of the system. The earthing problem was pointed out by the opposite party and advise the complainant to rectify the earthing problem. Admitedly the system has some defects. The defects was noticed in job card (exhibits) A1 and A2). From A1 and A2 it can be seen that the system was detective and the opposite party has attended the same. But the same defects was occurred repeatedly in the computer of the complainant. Moreover the opposite party admits in their version that they are ready and willing to repair the defects in the computer if they found any defects. The complainant submits that she has purchased the computer with availing a loan from the scheduled cast and scheduled Tribe development corporation. From A1 and A2 the computer has some defects within a short period after -4- purchase. The complainant submits that the same defects was continuesly happened. Hence some inconveniences wascaused to the complainant. Moreover the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that the computer was no defects as alleged by the complainant. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant and exhibits A1 and A2. Job cards. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant (ie. as per A4) and pay Rs.1000/- as costs of these proceedings provided that the complainant shall returned the computer and accessories to the opposite parties. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-
-5-
APPENDIX Documents produced by complainant. A1 is the copy of job card dt. 9/5/07 A2 is the copy of job card dt. 22/11/07 A3 is the copy of Delivery chalan dt. 7/3/07 A4 is the copy of Invoice dt. 7/2/07. A5 is the copy of complaint dt. 3.1.09.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. KGR/6 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
