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. 183/2006 Filed on 30/06/2006

Dated : 31..01..2011

Complainant:

V. Appukuttan Nair, Hari Nivas, Pakaloor, Pallichal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. R. Vidyadharan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, M/s. Mycom Systems, T.C. No. 15/2009(1), VRA-20, Women's College Road, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 14.

    

   (By Adv. M.O. Mathai)

    

2. The Chairman, Zenith Computer Limited, Head Office, Zenith House, 29 MIDC, Central Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093.

    

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

This O.P having been heard on 03..08..2010, the Forum on 31..01..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

Brief facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are as follows: The complainant purchased a Zenith Computer System bearing Serial No.CH 4120362 manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for his personal use. The 1^st opposite party is the authorised dealer of the Zenith Computer System manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. The computer and other accessories were purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party on 3/11/2004 as per Bill No. 000180. But the system did not function as reasonably expected. The system had major fault and discrepancies and that was brought to the knowledge of the 1^st opposite party in November, 2004 itself and he again assured that it would function upto the mark after its operation to a reasonable period. That the system went out of order from July, 2005 within warranty period and that was informed to the 1^st opposite party. Authorised technicians of the opposite party attended the problems. The UPS which was having major defect was replaced on receiving Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant. But they could not remedy the fault complained of. The last service was done on 24/12/2005 on receipt of Rs. 3000/- as service charge. But the system is not functioning from the next day onwards. The non functioning of the system was reported to the 1^st opposite party on 25/12/2005. The 1^st opposite party who certified the system as working fine on 24/12/2005 turned around and told that the process and mother board have to be changed and for that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has to be paid. That the computer system delivered by the 1^st opposite party has fundamental defect. The authorised technicians attended the problems during the warranty period and thereafter could not rectify the defects and make the system an operational one. That the very purpose of purchase of the system has been defeated and that resulted in physical and mental agony to the complainant. The conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service causing loss and agony to the complainant. It is an unfair trade practice also. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties have filed separate versions. The 1^st opposite party in their version admit the purchase of the system by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party. That no complaint regarding deficiency of service from the side of the customer stands received till 2//11/2005, the date when warranty expired. The first time, the opposite party received a notice is registered letter dated 30/1/2006. In that notice the complainant admits that authorised engineers of the 1^st opposite party attended to service calls three times. In the notice complainant states that last service was on 24/12/2005. The last service on 24/12/2005 is not covered by the warranty. The advise tendered by the technicians of the 1^st opposite party for matters beyond warranty period is at the risk and cost of the customer only. After 2/11/2005 the 1^st opposite party can take up the matter with the 2^nd opposite party for replacement of mother board etc. only if the customer deposits the cost thereof along with the relevant report of the service Engineer. This has not happened. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The 2^nd opposite party in their version has contended that the complaint is not maintainable. That it is submitted that the findings of the commissioner are not supported by any scientific reasons and the findings are entered based on conjectures and surmises. Complaint was in respect of UPS which was reported in the month of July 2005. The UPS is not manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. It is an accessory purchased from other source for which the 2^nd opposite party has no involvement. It is submitted that the commissioner has not stated that the mother board is having manufacturing defects and that by itself absolves the 2^nd opposite party and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

On the part of the complainant the expert Commissioner has been examined as CW1 and marked Ext. C1. Exts. D1 & D2 were marked on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

The points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?

4. Point No. (i): Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Zenith Pentium IV 3 HT Computer, 500 VA UPS Logics, 56 K Priya Internal Modem from the 1^st opposite party. Though the invoice / bill for the same has been produced by the complainant it has not been marked. Furthermore, the complainant has not filed any affidavit to support his case. From the documents on record, as per the warranty card which has been marked as Ext. D1, it is evident that the machine has a warranty for a period of one year from the date of installation. The original of the warranty card has been produced by the complainant but not seen marked. As per D1, the date of installation is 3/11/2004. So the machine has been provided a warranty for a period of one year from 3/11/2004 and the warranty registration card has been signed by both parties. Hence, the aspect to be looked into is whether the defects, if any, had occured during the period of warranty or after the expiry of warranty and if the same had occured after the expiry of warranty, whether the machine had developed defects on various spells and had to be rectified on various occasions within the period of warranty.

5. The complainant has pleaded that the defect regarding the system was brought to the knowledge of the 1^st opposite party in November 2004 and again on July 2005, the defects were brought to the knowledge of the 1^st opposite party, and that accordingly the UPS was replaced after making a payment of Rs. 3,000/- and the system was not functioning from the next day onwards. But the 1^st opposite party has contended that they have not received any complaint regarding deficiency in service till 2/11/2005 the date when warranty expired. The complainant has not furnished any documents to corroborate his contention that the machine became defective during the warranty period as pleaded in the complaint. Though the letter dated 30/1/2006 sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party has not been marked, we have gone through the contents of the same wherein the complainant has alleged that the authorised technicians have serviced three times and last service was on 24/12/2005 which is after the period of warranty. The 1^st opposite party during argument had contended that 3 times free services were offered during warranty period but the said offer does not find a place in the warranty card. The complainant has not mentioned anything regarding the replacement of UPS in the said letter. The 1^st opposite party had argued that UPS is not manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and is an accessory purchased from other source for which the 2^nd opposite party has no involvement.

6. As per the report filed by the expert commissioner which has been marked as Ext. C1, the commissioner has reported that "Power system and memory of the Computer is found working. But the motherboard of the system is not working. So one cannot work with this system as the motherboard is faulty. Normally the average life time of the motherboard is 5 to 6 years. From the affidavit it is seen that the fault is occurred to the motherboard in the second year itself. I am of the view that the motherboard used in this system may be of low quality and hence the damage caused". 2^nd opposite party has filed their strong objection to the report stating that the findings of the Commissioner are not supported by any scientific reasons and the findings are entered based on conjectures and surmises. During cross examination of CW1 the 2^nd opposite party had put a specific question that "motherboard, high voltage from defective UPS വന്നാല്‍ കേടാകുമോ (Q) കേടാവാന്‍ സാദ്ധ്യതയുണ്ട് (A)". The expert Commissioner as CW1 has deposed that high voltage ആണെങ്കില്‍ SMPS അടിച്ചുപോയതിനുശേഷമേ motherboard - ന് കേട് വരു, ഇതില്‍ SMPS - ന് കേട് വന്നിട്ടില്ല motherboard ന് മാത്രമേ കേട് വന്നിട്ടുള്ളു''. From the above it could be concluded that there has been no high voltage fluctuation resulting in the damage of the motherboard. An expert opinion is expected to give technical details and the reason why that expert concluded that the defects were manufacturing defect. Here the expert has only opined that the motherboard used may be of low quality and hence the damage caused. Though no technical reasoning has been furnished, it has been concluded that the motherboard is defective. Though warranty is only for a period of one year, the complainant could not use the system defect free for reasonable period of time.

7. Taking into consideration the above discussions, evidence and available records we are of the view that the opposite parties shall replace the defective motherboard with a new one. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties shall replace the defective motherboard with a defect free one and shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the Order. No order as to compensation.

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 31^st day of January, 2011.

S.K.SREELA, MEMBER.

G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No.183/2006

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents : NIL

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : Sreenath. V.S

DW2 : Premjith. P.P

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of warranty registration card

D2 : Copy of warranty information

V. Court witness:

CW1 : Abdul Rahman

VI. Court Exts:

CR : Commission Report

PRESIDENT