BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 08/07/2010
Date of Order : 31/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 382/2010
Between
K.K. Paulose, | :: | Complainant |
Amminisseril, Kakkad. P.O., Piravom (Via.), Ernakulam Dt., Pin – 686 664. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha, Pin – 686 661) |
And
Sabu Antony, | :: | Opposite party |
First IT Solution, Computer Wholesale & Retail, Manikkiri Road, Valanjambalam, Kochi – 16. |
| (By Adv. K. Anand, Room No.1, K.M.S. Wakf Complex, Providence Road, Providence Jn., Kochi – 682 018) |
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
1. Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
The complainant purchased a computer worth Rs. 24, 500/- from the opposite party on 25-04-2008. The bill was issued in favour of his son who is a student. It went out of order within a short period after the purchase. The matter had been intimated to the opposite party. Their technicians tried to rectify the defects and replaced its various parts. Time and again, the defects continued. At last, the device entrusted with the opposite party. Still the computer is with the opposite party. Hence the complainant approaches this Forum for seeking following remedy against the opposite party. To direct the opposite party to return Rs. 24,500/- being the price of the device under dispute to refund Rs. 500/- being the price of one replaced part and travelling expenses incurred by the complainant.
2. Version of the opposite party :
The opposite party contended that the system was delivered in good condition. The opposite party used well qualified companies' accessories for assembling the system. The concerned company gave the warranty for the accessories of the computer. The complainant used the system for quite sometime without any defect and later the system became defective due to its improper usage and operation. These problems developed due to the ignorance of the complainant to operate the system and its functions. The opposite party rectified the defects without any delay. The opposite party has given prompt service to the complainant as and when required. The service guarantee was given for one year. As per the request of the complainant, the technician of the opposite party rectified the defects by repairing the mother board and replaced the mother board of the computer. But the mother board became defective once again and it was forwarded to the concerned company for rectification. The complaint of the mother board was rectified and sent back to the opposite party by the company. But the complainant is not ready to take delivery of the computer.
3. The complainant and the opposite party appeared through the counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Thereafter, both sides filed argument notes and we have heard the respective counsel.
4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund the price of the disputed device and Rs. 500/- as per Ext. A4 tax invoice from the opposite party?
Ext. A1 is the evidence of transaction between the parties. Ext. A1 issued in favour of the complainant's son Justin Paul. Ext. A2 and A3 are the assurance letters issued by the opposite party's staff. The opposite party has not raised any objection against the above documents. Moreover, the opposite party admitted that the opposite party's technicians went to the house of the complainant and given due attention and service whenever required. And some parts of the system were replaced also. The opposite party averred that they have promised only one year service warranty to the complainant's computer. There is no evidence with regard to the warranty of the parts of the computer. Eventhough the opposite party deposed that, the concerned manufacturing company of the parts had given 2 to 3 years warranty to the parts, but nothing is before us to substantiate the same. As per Ext. A4 on 11-11-2009, the opposite party received Rs. 500/- from the complainant for the replacement of SMPS in the disputed system. It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence to show that the complainant has mishandled the system. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to refund the price of the disputed device as well as the service charges to the complainant. But it seems that the complainant has been used the system for one year. Hence, he is entitled to get refund only after deducting 20% the depreciation from Rs. 24,500/- the price of the disputed computer. After deducting the depreciation, the amount arrives at Rs. 19,600/-.
5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint as follows :
The opposite party shall refund Rs. 19,600/- to the complainant being the price of the computer under dispute and refund Rs. 500/- being the price of the replaced parts mentioned in Ext. A4 receipt. The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2011.
