Date of filing : 27-12-2007 Date of order : 01-04-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.67/07 Dated this, the 1st day of April 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Suresh.T.C, S/o. Chandrashekharan Nair, } Complainant R/at Thundathil House, Po.Panathady, Via.Rajapuram. ( Adv. Purushothaman.M.Hosdurg) 1. Regimon.K.A. 2. Johny Joseph, Arakkakkuneel House, Vallikkadavu.Po, Parappa Via, } Opposiste parties Kasaragod. Proprietors, Forward Systems, Vellarikundu, Po.Vellarikund, Via. Parappa, Kasaragod.Dt. (Adv. Sunny Geroge, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The grievance of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties from whom he purchased a computer system with UPS have failed to render the post sale services properly and as a result his computer now became functionless. 2. According to complaint, the complainant on 31-03-07 purchased an assembled computer. That was having a warranty of 3 years for most its parts. The UPS purchased along with computer also having a warranty of one year. But the UPS became defective in June 2007. Eventhough the opposite parties serviced it, but it became out of order again in July 2007 and hence the opposite parties took it for service by substituting a stand by UPS. The stand by UPS also not working properly, the complainant alleges. Now the UPS is with the opposite party. 3. Thereafter the computer also went wrong and the service rendered by opposite parties is not at all satisfactory. Hence the complaint for the refund of the amount Rs.32850/- that he paid towards the purchase price of computer system and UPS with a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs. 4. Opposite parties defend the claim. According to opposite parties they are only the dealer of Intel computers. The warranty is offered by the company to their product. The Intel company is not offering site warranty. The faulty mother board of the computer once replaced by the company on the request of opposite parties. Intel company is a necessary party to the case. Since the UPS supplied was found defective on 11-06-07. It was serviced. One again on 15-10-07 though the complainant made a complaint about the working of UPS. On verification it was found that the UPS has no complaint, even then the opposite parties replaced it with a new one. The contention that the stand by UPS is not working properly is not correct. It is working properly and the allegation is purposefully raised with a view to harass the opposite parties. 5. The complaint about the mother board made on 26-11-07 was duly attended and informed to the Intel company. Thereafter the same was replaced on 26-02-08. The delay in replacement was caused due to the act of complainant. Hence there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts.A1 to A3 marked. Complainant cross-examined by counsel for opposite party. Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit in support of the contention of opposite parties and Exts B1 to B7 marked. Opposite party No.1 cross examined by counsel for complainant. Both sides heard and documents perused carefully. 7. According to the complainant the I ball UPS he purchased for Rs.2450/- was of 630VA. But when it was taken for repair the opposite party replaced it with a 600 VA UPS. But according to opposite party they replaced the UPS with a new one and it is a now in good working condition. But in his deposition as PW1 he stated that the contention that the stand by UPS given by opposite parties is not working is not correct. This means that the UPS that is given as a stand by is working in good condition. That doesnot mean that they are not liable to replace it with the original UPS that is purchased by complainant. The opposite parties were bound to return the UPS of the complainant in good condition after service or they should have replaced the UPS with a UPS having same power. The opposite parties have no case that the replaced UPS is of 630 VA. 8. The complainant regarding the mother board of the computer system was seen made on 26-11-07. But the replacement is effected on 26-02-08. It shows inordinate delay is replacing the mother board. The contention of the opposite parties that the delay was occurred only due that adamant attitude of the complainant is not acceptable. No customer will take an adamant attitude when somebody approaches to do the service he demanded and if the complainant show any such attitude it may be only to express his discontent in the or lethargic services offered or provided to him. The approach of the opposite parties to the complaints of the complainant on various dates and the way they sought to take remedial measures show that there is lack of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for their lack of service. 9. The complainant has not produced any document or take any steps to prove the present working condition of his computer system supplied by opposite party. In the absence of such an evidence it is not fair to pass an order for replacement of the computer system. 10. The opposite parties took a contention that that complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer since they are only the dealer. The said argument is not sustainable since the complaint is against the service rendered by the opposite parties as a trade of the computer system. That apart as admitted by opposite parties the computer system is an assembled one with the parts manufactured by different companies. In such circumstances the person or the firm (by whatever name they called) who assembled or sold the unit is considered as the manufacturer of the unit. In this case it is none other than the opposite parties. Therefore it is not necessary to implead the Intel company in the party array. In the circumstances the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to their deficient services. Opposite parties also directed to return the I ball 630 VA UPS that is entrusted for repair in perfect working condition and take back the substituted UPS. Opposite parties shall also pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of these proceedings to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1.31-03-07 Invoice A2. Warranty Card. A3. 1 Year Limited Warranty registration (United States of America) B1 to B5 Photo copy of communications. B6. Shiper’s copy Courier receipt) B7 Photo copy of communication. PW1. T.C.Suresh DW1.Rejimon.K.A. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
