BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT: SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 22/2009 Filed on 30/01/2009 Dated: 30..09..2010 Complainant: K.S. Lekshminarayanan, Sreepadmam, TC/41/759(1), Puthencottah Road, Manacaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
Opposite parties: The Chairman, HCL., Corporate Office, 299, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. The Manager, TRIAD Microsystems, Sopanam, CRRA – 143 AA., Chirakulam Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 1. The Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd., Frontline Division, 5572/A, Thoundayil Road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi. (By Adv. Shihabudeen Kariyath)
This O.P having been heard on 16..08..2010, the Forum on 30..09..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows: Complainant had purchased one HCL computer and its accessories on 29/04/2004. In June 2007 the monitor of the Computer became defective and the same was entrusted for repairs with the 2nd opposite party on 28/07/2007. But the same was not repaired for non-availability of LOT. Though the complainant insisted to give the same in writing they refused to do so. The monitor is still with the 2nd opposite party. Complainant pleads that he had purchased HCL product under the impression that it is a well known company selling standard products. But eventhough the complainant had used the Computer with utmost care, the same has become defective within a short span of 3 years. Furthermore the after sales service is also not proper. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievance.
2. 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed a joint version contending as follows: The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has concealed material facts pertaining to the Contractual Liability of these opposite parties qua the service required to be provided to the Desktop of the complainant under the warranty program issued by the opposite parties. The complainant has deliberately shied away from annexing the complete terms and conditions of the warranty program as applicable on the product (Desktop) in dispute while filing the warranty card; only to mislead this Forum, which amounts to material concealment of facts. There is no deficiency in service rendered by these opposite parties. As per the warranty terms and conditions the said warranty for the machine in question commenced on 29/04/2004 and thus expired on 28/04/2005. About 27 months post warranty expiration cannot by any stretch of imagination be made a ground for seeking any relief under the aegis of the Act; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In the absence of the currency of any such warranty program, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for any material consequences thereinafter. The relief of the refund of the price of the Desktop, is inadmissible under the terms and conditions of the HCL warranty program issued by the opposite parties. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainant has filed affidavit in support of his complaint marked Exs. P1 to P4 on his part. He has not been cross examined. Opposite parties had no evidence.
The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? If the above is in affirmative, from whom the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
4. Points (i) & (ii) : The purchase of HCL Computer with accessories on 29/04/2004 by the complainant for Rs. 32,882/- is evident for Ext. P1. The case of the complainant is that, the Monitor of the said Computer became defective and the same was given for repair to TRIAD Microsystems on 28/7/2007 and the same has not been repaired for want of LOT. Opposite parties 1 & 3 have contended that the desktop has been used for a period of about 3 years without any complaints or defects and mere fact that one small fractional component like the Flyback or LOT component of the Monitor failed in the said machine; which can be directly attributed to the problem of constant voltage variance in the power system that is prevalent in India cannot be made the sole ground for the refund of the price of the entire Computer or in the alternative to conclude that the machine has a manufacturing defect or has been assembled using sub-standard material. TRIAD Microsystems, the 2nd opposite party has neither appeared before the Forum nor has filed any version defending the allegations levelled against them. As such the Monitor is with the 2nd opposite party. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had used the Computer for 3 years. The Monitor became defective in July 2007 and the same has been entrusted with the 2nd opposite party for repair. The complainant does not have a case that the Monitor became defective during the warranty period. In the above circumstance, no deficiency can be attributed on the opposite parties 1 & 3. It is the 2nd opposite party who has committed deficiency in service in not repairing and returning the Monitor in time for which no negligence can be cast upon opposite parties 1 & 3. The act of the 2nd opposite party in not returning the Monitor after repair definitely amounts to deficiency in service and the 2nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and such other difficulties caused to the complainant due to the negligence on their part.
5. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get his Monitor repaired to his satisfaction from the 2nd opposite party along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- from the 2nd opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, opposite parties 1 & 3 are exempted from any liabilities. In the result, complaint is allowed. 2nd opposite party shall repair and return the Monitor to the satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the Order, failing which the 2nd opposite party shall refund the price of the Monitor. The 2nd opposite party shall also pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which execution proceedings can be initiated.
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 30th day of September, 2010. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No. 22/2009
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : K.S. Lekshminarayanan
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of Invoice-cum-Delivery note dated 29/4/2004
P2 : Copy of acknowledgement card dated 28/7/2007
P3 : Copy of registered letter dated 16/4/2008.
P4 : Acknowledgement card
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
| | [HONORABLE MRS. Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE MRS. Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member | | 
