<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 343/2004<br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Ebanezer Samji, Olive Veedu, Palace Lane, Pappanamcode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. D. Sukritharaj)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> Sajin, Proprietor, Mahatma Gandhi Educational Trust, Tutors Lane, Statue Junction, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 14.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 28.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a new computer set from the opposite party on 14.05.2001 from his shop Saj Infonet, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. Within one year from the date of purchase (ie. Within the warranty period), the said computer became defective and almost dead. Complainant informed the opposite party about the non-functioning of the computer and accordingly the opposite party with his helper came to the complainant’s house on 18.04.2002 and examined the said computer. Opposite party came to the conclusion that computer is defective and the defect is major and decided to replace his computer set. On 18.04.2002 the opposite party had taken the most vital part i.e; 64 MB RAM from the said computer in the process to replace the defective computer. The said computer purchased by the complainant was solely assembled by the opposite party and the defect in the computer set was caused due to the low quality of the parts assembled by the opposite party. In the mean time, opposite party shifted the business from one place to another. The frequent shifting of opposite party’s business was with evil motive to cheat and defraud his consumers including the complainant. At last on 24.01.2004 complainant was constrained to make an attempt to repair the said computer by computer expert mechanics “Triad Micro Systems”, Pattom by paying Rs. 3650/-. Even then the computer is not functioning properly since the opposite party has taken the vital part of the computer set i.e; 64 MB RAM. The complainant incurred great financial loss and mental agony and hardship due to the acts of the opposite party. Hence this complaint claiming Rs. 25000/- towards compensation and to get return 64 MB RAM taken by the opposite party. <br /> Opposite party remains exparte.<br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the computer purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is defective?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The first point requiring consideration is whether the computer purchased by the complainant from the opposite party is defective. Submission by the counsel appearing for the complainant is that complainant purchased a New Brand Computer set from the opposite party on 14.05.2001. Ext. P1 is the installation note wherein it has been mentioned that product name and model is assembled system, date of installation is 14.05.2001 and warranty period is from 14.05.2001to 14.05.2002. A perusal of Ext. P1 would disclose the components of the assembled system of the computer. The price of the said computer is not shown in Ext. P1. Main thrust of argument advanced by the complainant is that the said computer became defective within the warranty period, and complainant informed it to the opposite party and opposite party examined the said computer on 18.04.2002, and assured the complainant to replace it with a new one. Submission by the complainant is that on 18.04.2002, the opposite party had taken the most vital part of the computer, viz; 64 MB RAM from the said computer in the process to replace the said defective computer. Even after repeated requests by the complainant opposite party did not replace the said computer with new one. At last on 24.01.2004 complainant repaired the said computer from the Triad Micro Systems as per Ext. P2. In the affidavit complainant stated that since opposite party had not returned the 64 MB RAM, the complainant was forced to purchase 128 MB RAM as per Ext.P6 to repair the same. It is pertinent to note that in Ext. P1 RAM is 128 MB, instead of 64 MB as deposed by the complainant. The affidavit by way of evidence filed by the complainant and pleadings in the complaint that opposite party has taken the most vital part of the computer (64 MB RAM) is in no way tallying with the contention in Ext. P1 installation note wherein it is stated that the installed RAM is 128 MB. Ext. P3 is the copy of advocate notice seen sent to the opposite party. In Ext. P3 also it is stated on 18.04.2002 the opposite party had taken the most vital part of the computer in question, that is 64 MB RAM, but in installation note it is seen that the installed RAM is 128 MB. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P3 advocate notice is seen sent to the opposite party on 16.04.2004, after a lapse of 2 years from the date of taking the vital part of the computer in question. Ext. P2 is the bill issued by Triad Micro Systems. Ext. P2 is seen as service bill dated 24.01.2004. Nowhere in Ext. P2 and P6 it has been mentioned that the said descriptions in the bill are relating to descriptions in Ext. P1 installation note. No attempt is seen taken by the complainant to examine the repairer of the Triad Micro Systems to corroborate the pleadings in the complaint. Main allegation in the complaint is that the said computer is defective. No expert report is seen sought by the complainant to prove the defects of the said computer. As far allegation regarding defective good is concerned, the defects should be ascertained and proved by expert evidence. There is no cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations of the computer in question being defective. From the evidence and pleadings of the complainant on record, we find that no evidence is forthcoming so as to establish the defects of the said computer. Even if the opposite party is absent and set exparte, complainant will have to establish the case set out in the complaint. Complainant has failed to establish the complaint which deserves to be dismissed. <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 343/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> PW1 - Ebanezer Samji<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Installation Note issued by Saj Infonet.<br /> P2 - Service Bill dated 24.01.2004 issued by Triad Micro Systems for Rs. 3650/- <br /> P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.04.2004.<br /> P4 - Postal receipt No.1063.<br /> P5 - Acknowledgement card<br /> P6 - Cash Bill dated 26.08.2004 issued by Triad Micro Systems for Rs. 1950/- <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT