BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 387/2001
Dated : 15.11.2010
Complainant:
S. Sunil Kumar, 'Padmalayam', Vazhottukonam, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)
Opposite party:
Sankar. P, Karma Info System, Ground Floor, Ambady, Near Taxi Stand, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram residing at 'Revathy', T.C 10/1792, Kavalloor Lane, Vattiyoorkavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
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 24.02.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 03.09.2010, the Forum on 15.11.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: Complainant had purchased a Computer Intel Pentinum III Processor from the opposite party on 28.09.2000 for Rs. 50,000/-. The cash for the purchase of computer was arranged through a loan from Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Sasthamangalam Branch under Hire purchase agreement. When the computer was put in use the complainant found some defect in the system and the same was informed to the opposite party. The opposite party repaired the computer, but the defect is not yet rectified. When the computer was opened for repair it was noticed that instead of Intel 810 chipset motherboard it is fitted with Mercury 810 chipset motherboard. The opposite party charged money from the complainant for Intel 810 chipset motherboard. It is mentioned in the purchase bill. The opposite party charged money for Intel 810 chipset motherboard and filled Mercury Intel 810 chipset. The opposite party charged Rs. 4,000/- more from the complainant and that is clearly a deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party many times personally and intimated the defect, but the opposite party did not rectify the defect or changed the Intel 810 chipset motherboard. Hence this complaint for reliefs.
Opposite party has filed version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The complainant approached the opposite party stating that a loan has been sanctioned from Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Sasthamangalam Branch and demanded a proforma invoice for Rs. 50,000/- and the opposite party had issued a proforma invoice showing the configuration and the price of the system, which came around Rs. 50,000/- and the invoice was approved by the KSFE. The opposite party sent a bill dated 28.09.2000 to K.S.F.E which clearly mentions the configuration of the system and the price ie.; Rs. 50,000/- and the cash was received by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party and demanded a refund of Rs. 10,000/- from the loan amount and requested the opposite party to reduce the price amount by changing the components so as to fetch a refund of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant himself demanded an Intel 810 chipset with Mercury Motherboard and sacrificed the U.P.S in order to tally the price difference. The computer system was assembled in the presence of the complainant to his full satisfaction. The opposite party refunded Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant from the loan amount that is Rs. 50,000/- and the voucher dated 09.10.2000 was signed by the complainant. There were some minor defects in the speaker system supplied by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party to replace the speaker system as the defect had occurred well within the warranty period. As there was no stock readily available, the opposite party agreed to refund Rs. 2,600/- to the complainant being the cost of the speaker system. The opposite party refunded the said amount of Rs. 2,600/-. On 06.03.2001 the complainant issued a letter to his counsel in the presence of the opposite party stating that the opposite party has taken steps to redress his grievance to his full satisfaction. On 07.03.2001 the counsel for the complainant issued a letter to the opposite party stating that the complainant's grievance was solved to his full satisfaction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P6 on their side. Exts. D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of the opposite party. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has pleaded that he has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of the computer. In the version the opposite party has contended that out of Rs. 50,000/- opposite party has refunded Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant from the loan amount that is Rs. 50,000/-. As per Ext. D2 dated 09.10.2000 it is evident that the complainant has been refunded Rs. 10,000/- by the opposite party. But the complainant has not made any whisper regarding the said refund in the complaint. Only after the filing of the version and the production of the said document by the opposite party, the complainant has mentioned the same in the affidavit and in the affidavit the complainant has sworn that the opposite party has refunded Rs. 10,000/- as balance amount from the loan amount on 09.10.2000 by deducting the actual price of the computer without UPS from the loan amount. Here the pertinent aspect to be noted is that as per Ext. P2 the cost of the UPS is only Rs. 4,500/-. Hence the statement of the complainant that Rs. 10,000/- has been refunded towards the price of the UPS does not tally and is not acceptable at all. Furthermore at the time of filing of the complaint, the list of documents mentioned are only delivery order, purchase bill and two registered notices. But only after the filing of the version and Ext. D2 by the opposite party, the complainant has produced Ext. P5.
Besides this, the complainant has pleaded that when the computer was put in use he found some defect in the system and the same was informed to the opposite party and when the computer was opened for repair it was noticed that inspite of Intel 810 chipset motherboard, it was fitted with Mercury 810 chipset motherboard. The complainant has further pleaded that the opposite party has charged money for the Intel 810 chipset motherboard which comes to Rs. 8,500/- whereas the cost of the Mercury 810 chipset motherboard comes to only Rs. 4,500/-, so there is a difference of Rs. 4,000/- between these two motherboards. Here the very important point to be noted is that on 06.03.2001 complainant had given a letter to the General Secretary, COINPAR stating that the dealer has taken necessary steps to rectify the defects and now it is on working condition. On the basis of the said letter, the COINPAR on 07.03.2001 has issued a letter to the opposite party stating that they are not pressing the issue any further since the dispute of the complainant has been settled. In the above situation it is to be noted that in the complaint, complainant had pleaded that while opening the computer he had the knowledge regarding the chipset motherboard. If that be so, then why the complainant has not raised such an issue to the opposite party at that time itself is not known. Further the complainant has issued Ext. D4 stating that opposite party has taken necessary steps to rectify the defects. If at all the complainant had a complaint regarding the chipset motherboard, he would have definitely raised the same at that time and would not have issued the settlement letter to opposite party. In the above circumstance why the complainant has not raised the issue regarding the motherboard has not been explained properly. Hence we find that the complainant has miserably failed in establishing his allegations levelled against the opposite party and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Hence the complaint deserves only to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of November 2010.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 387/2001
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of Delivery Order dated 26.09.2000.
P2 - Copy of sale bill dated 28.09.2000
P3 - Registered notice dated 15.05.2001 send to opposite
party(Returned).
P4 - Registered notice dated 17.08.2001 send to opposite
party(Returned).
P5 - Original voucher No. 005 dated 09.10.2000
P6 - Original voucher No. 202 dated 06.03.2001
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of sale bill No. 35 dated 28.09.2000
D2 - Copy of voucher No. 005 dated 09.10.2000
D3 - Copy of voucher No. 202 dated 06.03.2001
D4 - Copy of letter dated 06.03.2001 from complainant.
D5 - Copy of letter dated 07.03.2001
PRESIDENT
jb
