IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 31^st day of May, 2011

Filed on 31.08.10

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

                                                   in

C.C.No.198/10

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Sri.M.Ayub Khan,                          1.         The Manager, Oxygen, The Digital Shop,

Tharayilpeediayil,                                        Golden Sands Building,

Athikkattukulangara Muri,               C.C.S.B Road, Alappuzha.

Palamel Village,                             

Nooranadu.P.O.,                            2.         The Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd.,

PIN-690 504.                                            Frontline Division, No.-5572/A, 1^st Floor,

(By Adv.R.Ullas)                                        Thoundayil Road, Panampally Nagar, Cochin-682036.

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant purchased a computer system from the opposite parties on 16^th August 2008. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the system would be assembled using only branded items. However, right from the early days of its purchase, the computer started malfunctioning and nonfunctioning. In 2010 itself, the PC of the system went out of order more than five occasions. The opposite parties had offered proper and prompt free service of the computer at the time of its purchase. Notwithstanding such assurances, the service technicians turned up belatedly and collected service charges from the complainant. On enquiry, the complainant reliably learned that the 1^st opposite party uses items of inferior quality to assemble the computer system which contributed to the troubles and tribulations of the complainant. The complainant on 26^th April 2010 sent a registered notice to the 1^st opposite party calling upon to replace the PC with a brand new one, and to pay compensation for both monetary and mental woes of the complainant. There after, the PC, UPS and printer of the system ran out of order. Got aggrieved this complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. On notices being sent, the 1^st opposite party turned up and filed version. The 2^nd opposite party did not make it a point to appear before this Forum to fight the complainant case. The 1^st opposite party contends that the computer system sold to the complainant was of HCL, a very reputed brand. According to the opposite party, the opposite party never issued any warranty to the system so sold to the complainant. Also the opposite party never tendered any assurances as to the service within three hours of complaint. Every complaint as to the computer system is being attended on priority basis. The computer system sold to the complainant was perfect. Whenever any complaint with regard to the said system arose, the service personnel duly attended the same. The 2^nd opposite party even offered to rectify or replace the defective portion of the system. But the complainant was unwilling to accept the offer, the opposite party asserts. The complaint is with out any merit. The same is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the 1^st opposite party, the said opposite party forcefully argue.

2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts. Al to A9 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, except filing version, the opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

3. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that crop up for consideration are:-

(1) Whether the computer system the complainant purchased was defective?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4. We carefully perused the pleadings, documents and arguments put forth by the parties. Concededly the complainant purchased the computer system from the 1^st opposite party. The complainant contention is that the system, right from its purchase was time and again malfunctioning. Notwithstanding warranty being issued, the opposite party levied service charges, the complainant alleges. The opposite party contends that no warranty was so offered as alleged by the complainant. The complainant, in order to substantiate his case produced Exbts. A1 to A9 documents. On a plain perusal of the said documents, particularly Exbts. A4 to A7 service call reports, it is revealed that the computer system was over and again running out of order. It is pertinent to note that one of the key contentions of the opposite party is that no warranty card was issued to the complainant. Exbt. A2 warranty card positively disproves the opposite parties said contention. Further, according to the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party offered to replace or repair the system, but the complainant was reluctant to accept the offer. Needless to say, the said contention of the 1^st opposite party lends only assurance to the complainant case. Obviously, the complainant case stands sufficiently substantiated that inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. On the other hand except making mere contentions, no serious effort is seemed to have come from the side of the opposite party to prop up its version or to counter the complainant case. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to relief.

In view of the facts and circumstance, the 1^st opposite party to replace the PC, UPS and printer of the computer in question with a brand new one each. The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the complainant. The said opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Complaint stands disposed accordingly.  No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of May, 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi     

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           M.Ayub Khan (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The Cash Bill dated, 16.08.2008 for an amount of Rs.37,750/-

Ext. A2            -           The Warranty Card

Ext. A3-A7      -           The Service Call Reports dated, 22.02.2010, 14.04.2010, 08.05.2010,

18.05.2010 and 31.05.2010 respectively

Ext. A8            -           The copy of the Letter dated, 26.04.2010

Ext. A9            -           The Postal Acknowledgment Card       

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-      

Compared by:-