O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant, against the OP are that he is a practicing advocate. That on 03/10/2008 he purchased computer from the OP for Rs.29,000/- as described in the complaint. That computer purchased by him was good for a period of four months and thereafter it started giving troubles one way or the other and it became the habit for him to call the OP and same was repaired. The problem with the computer and other accessories has become a day to day problem. Then he sent a notice on 11/06/2009 to the OP which is served on him on 14/06/2009. Even after that notice the OP failed to rectify the defect and the OP on 27/06/2009 threatened his wife to withdraw the notice that he has been put to hardship and inconvenience because of the deficiency in the service of the OP and prayed for a direction to the OP to pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/- and to refund the cost of the computer with interest at 24% p.a.<br /> <br /> OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version. The OP admitted to had sold a computer to the complainant on 04/10/2008 as stated by the complainant. He has further stated that there was no hardware problem in the computer and when the complainant called them about some problem in the computer they sent the service engineer who found no hardware problem but there was a problem occurred when the complainant had changed some settings in the software which was rectified at the spart. They received another call saying the printer is not working, the service engineer went and found cartridge was empty and print could not be taken and suggested to change the cartridge and stated that the service engineer attended all the problems of the complainant and stated that there was miss handling of the system by the complainant and denying any lapse on his part submitted for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Counsel for OP has filed his written arguments. Complainant has produced the invoice, delivery challan and a copy of the legal notice he issued to OP. Heard complainant in person perused the written arguments of the counsel for OP and perused the records. <br /> <br /> On consideration of the materials placed, before us following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in this service?. <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?.<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Answer on point No:1 In the negative. <br /> Answer on Point No:2 To see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS:<br /> <br /> Answer on point No:1: The OP since has admitted to had sold a computer to the complainant on 03/10/2008 or 04/10/2008 as there is some discrepancy in the date which is not material, for Rs.29,000/- the complainant who alleges defects in the said computer has to prove the same and the deficiency of the OP to get the relief he has claimed in the complaint.<br /> <br /> The complainant prior to filing of this complaint issued a notice to OP on 11/06/2009 alleging that the computer he purchased from the OP worked satisfactorily for a period of two months and started giving problems thereafter. In the complaint he has stated as if the computer was good for a period of 4 moths and thereafter it started giving problem. In the affidavit evidence filed by him he has repeated that the computer worked for 4 months thereafter was giving problems one way or the other and when he gave complaint to the OP the same was repaired. But thereafter the complainant though stated that the problem became day today problem, therefore, he got issued a legal notice but he has not pointed out or come out with any specific problem he faced with the computer and having had complained to the OP to attend to them, whatever the complainant had complained to he has attended and repaired as admitted by the complainant. The complainant except making general allegation found to have not complained to OP with any specific problem or short comings he faced with the OP. If the complainant had such problems in the computer he could have definitely brought to the notice of the OP or called the OP to attend to it or deliver system to the OP for repair but nothing is found to have been done and the complainant even now has not brought to the notice of the Forum any specific defect or problem he is facing in the system. The allegations of the complainant from all is pleadings are nothing but general and unfounded. The problem he found after the purchase of the computer is inconsistent. <br /> <br /> If the complainant had such problem in the computer, in the course of enquiry into his allegations he could have applied for getting that computer checked or examined through an expert to know the defects he has alleged. But he has not chosen to do so. OP in his affidavit evidence has stated that the specific problems that were found in the computer is due to miss handling by the complainant are rectified and he did not find any hardware problem has remained uncontraverted and unrebutted by the complainant. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the result we answer point No:1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3rd march 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />