DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th Day  of November 2011

 

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

              : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

               : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member         Date of filing: 09/11/2010

 

                                       (C.C.No.143/2010)

 

V.C.Janardhanan,

VI/176, Shantashree,

Keralassery, Pin: 678 641

Palakkad.

(Party in Person)                                            -        Complainant

 

                                                                   V/s

 

The Proprietor,

M/s.Scholar Digital Systems,

17/589, 1^st Floor,

Mettupalayam Street,

Palakkad – 678 001.                               -        Opposite party

(By Adv.Sindhupriya)      

 

         

          By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

 

 

On offer and acceptance terms a PC System with complete accessories were supplied to the complainant by the opposite party on 8^th November 2008. The consideration for the supplies was agreed   between them to be in kind and cash. Buy back of the old working system (CPU, Monitor, Keypad and Mouse) of the complainant, which was slow in work and hanging.   Accordingly the system in possession of the complainant was taken and an amount of Rs.8,500/- paid to the opposite party. There was no receipt rendered to the complainant. The opposite party engaged in sales and services in consumer durables linked to computer peripherals and gadgets in the field  of Information Technology with service centre. The opposite party’s authorized technician installed the PC system. After the installation of computer system, the complainant began to experience interruption and intermittent stoppage of work owing to the failure of system. The opposite party promised to make amends and attend to it as per the condition of warranty. However with the elapse of time, the opposite party paid no heed to the warranty terms and conditions and not attending to any of the complaints of intermittent and abrupt stoppage of the system. In response to the non functioning of the system by the complainant, the opposite party responded that the supplies effected and installed at the residence of the complainant was a computer CPU containing Intel dual core processor, Asus P5 KPL – CM Motherboard, 1GB DDR2 RAM Hynix, 160 GB SATA Hard Disk Drive Hitachi DVD Writer, LG and one Zebronics Enclosure. The defects / deficiency subsisted with the passage of time, in the absence of due and timely attendance to the PC system by the opposite party. The opposite party assured 2 years warranty for the supplies affected. But the free servicing was limited to two occasions only. The reports prepared by the authorized technician after attending to the PC system well establish defective system supplied and continued deficiency in service by the opposite party. The complainant issued a letter dated 25/2/2010 to the defects of system and the need for corrective action. But the opposite party replied letter dated 8/3/2010 with a demand notice for pending payment of Rs.5,641.50/-. The system hanging every now and then, and adversely affecting the complainant’s day to day work and professional needs, there was no other alternative but to entrust the job to someone else in the light of the deliberate and evasive gesture of the opposite party to attend the defects. Another technician from M/s.Net Ways System was entrusted with the task of curing the defects incurring additional and extra costs for service and repairs. The technician opined that the type of problem attended to by him could only be due to a defective ram / hard disk supplied and these could not be merely branded as software deficiency. The complainant spent a total extra expense amounting to Rs.9,000/- for repairing the system.  The complainant had issued a lawyer notice to opposite party on 22/3/2010. Then the opposite party has responded by sending a registered cover dated 31/7/2010, enclosing two blank sheets of paper. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to

 

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. On 8/11/08 the opposite party has never supplied a PC system with complete accessories. The opposite party has supplied only a computer CPU containing the accessories to the complainant on 17/11/08. The complainant paid only Rs.8,500/- There was no agreement written or oral between the complainant and opposite party to pay the consideration in kind or in cash. Nothing was taken away by the opposite party from the complainant’s residence in exchange of the parts supplied. As per the terms and conditions no warranty was assured by the opposite party to the parts supplied by him. The opposite party has supplied only the CPU with accessories. There is no complaint about the defects of the parts supplied by the opposite party. There is no difference between the parts supplied by the firm or the authorized technicians. The opposite party stated that free service was done on 26/11/08 and 10/12/08 and the next call for the service on 16/12/09. The complainant paid only Rs.8,500/- as part of the total consideration of Rs.12,455/- and he promised to pay the balance consideration within one month. In spite of repeated requests and personal contacts on behalf of the opposite party, the complainant was reluctant to pay the balance amount. On complainant’s request the opposite party’s technician   visited the house of the complainant on 16/12/2009 to attend the PC system. Then also the complainant was reluctant to pay  service charges to the technicians. The opposite party has given free service to the parts supplied by him on three occasions. The opposite party sent a reply to the notice on 8/3/2010 denying all the allegations and demanding Rs.5,641.50/- towards the pending payment. The opposite party denies that the complainant has received only a registered cover dated 31/7/10 enclosing two blank sheets of paper instead of the reply notice. The type of problem alleged to be faced by the complainant cannot be due to any hardware deficiency caused by the parts supplied by the opposite party. According to the complainant only formatting the PC system was done by him to cure the defects of the PC system. Formatting means reloading of software only. The complainant has not charged any of the parts or repaired any of the parts supplied by the opposite party and he has not suffered any loss due to the defects caused to the parts supplied. The opposite party is a dealer / distributor of goods and the complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to the complaint. So the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party has installed a system of the complainant which he had brought from Goa on 8/11/08. The complainant purchased a new CPU with accessories from the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.12,455/- on 17/11/08. On that day the opposite party’s technician installed the new CPU to the old system and copied all the data from the old system to the new one. The opposite party has not taken away any of the PC system which is in possession of the complainant. The difficulties and inconveniences if any caused to the complainant are only because of the defects prevailing in his old system and no responsibility can be fastened on the opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Complainant and opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A12 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the side of the opposite party. The copy of sale tax returns from the period from 1/11/08 to 30/11/08 submitted by the opposite party before the Assessing Authority, CTO IInd circle, Palakkad marked as Ext.C1. Matter was heard.

 

Issues to be considered are

 

We perused relevant documents on record. The opposite party stated that he has not supplied a PC system with complete accessories as mentioned in the complaint. In Ext.B1 the opposite party supplied ATX Cabinet Zebronics, DVD Writer LG black, HDD 160 GB SATA Hittachi, 1 GB DDR2 RAM Hynix I, Motherboard Asus P5KPL – CM, Intel Pentium Dual Core 2 GHZ for an amount of Rs.12,455/-. The opposite party admitted that received Rs.8,500/- from the complainant. Further opposite party stated that nothing was taken by him from complainant’s residence in exchange of the parts supplied. In Ext.A1 the authorized technician of opposite party diagnosis the system with AMD Sempron 2.10 GHZ, 960MB RAM, DVD Writer, Logitech Key board, Mouse, 160 GB SATA Hard Disk on 8/11/08.

 In Ext.A2 dated 17/11/08 mentioned that RAM DUST problem diagnosis and problem reported: System not responding. In Ext.A3 dated 26/11/08 shows that problem type : System blue screen error and diagnosis : Ram slot charging. In Ext.A5 dated 10/12/08 shows problem type : System sometime display and diagnosis : System servicing & B105 battery changing. In Ext.A6 shows problem reported : System continuously restarting and software problem, Diagnosis : System serviced and software installed. The Ext.A1 to A6 except A4 issued by opposite party and the technicians attended the complaint. The opposite party stated he supplied only a computer CPU containing accessories to the complainant on 17/11/08 and free service was done on 26/11/08 and 10/12/08 and the next call for the service as on 16/12/09 as evidenced in report No.1061. But in Ext.A1 dated 8/11/08 shows the column service rendered – working properly. So the opposite party installed the system on 8/11/08. In Ext.A2, A3, A5 and A6 shows the defects of the complainant’s computer system. On  verification  shows  that  the  system was  installed  on  8/11/08  and  the defects was noted on 17/11/08 i.e.  within  9  days  from  the  date  of  installation.    It  is  evident  from  Ext.A2,         

A3, A5  and A6 that system not responding, system blue screen error, system continuously restarting and software problem. The opposite party stated that free service was done on 26/11/08 and 10/12/08. It is evident from Ext.A6 that complainant paid Rs.500/- for service charge. The technicians of opposite party attended the complaint.

 The equipments of computer system given by the opposite party is serviced within the warranty period. In Ext.B1 and B2 shows that the opposite party issued the CPU with accessories on 17/11/08. In Ext.A10 series the complainant produced the postal cover issued by the opposite party to the complainant attached two blank sheets. The complainant stated that the opposite party had issued a registered cover dated 31/7/10 enclosing two blank sheets of paper. The opposite party has not produced contradictory evidence. The opposite party has not raised objection to marking of Ext.A10 series. In Ext.A11 series shows the defects of the complainant’s computer and repaired for an amount of Rs.6180/-. In Ext.B5 marked with objection shows that Report No.757 dated 17/11/08 diagnosis : New System installed and copied all data to new system. The original of Ext.B5 not produced by the opposite party. In Ext.A2 dated 17/11/08 the original bill  issued by opposite party shows that diagnosis : RAM DUST PROBLEM. The opposite party has not raised objection to marking of Ext.A2 document. There was confusion regarding the documents, Ext.A2 and Ext.B5 issued by the opposite party. The complainant stated that the computer system was installed on 8/11/08. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the service technician installed the computer with accessories and mentioned working properly. The opposite party has not  examined the technician. In Ext.C1 the sales register shows on 17/11/2008 voucher  ref:253 the gross total is Rs.12,454.78/-.  The complainant stated that the computer system  taken  and paid an amount  of  Rs.8,500/-    to    the opposite party. No receipt was issued by opposite party to receive an amount of Rs.8,500/- and the balance amount. Also the opposite party admitted that received Rs,8,500/- and stated that nothing was taken from complainant’s residence in exchange of the parts supplied. Admittedly         the technician of opposite party installed the PC system of complainant and given the CPU containing Intel Dual Core Processor, Asus P5 KPL – CM, Mother Board, 1GB DDR2 Hynix, GB SATA hard disk drive, Hitachi DVD Writer LG and One Zebronics Enclosure.  It is evident from Ext.A2 that the PC system became defective within two week. The complainant has not taken commission to prove the manufacturing defects of the PC system. In Ext.A11 series and A2, A3, A5 and A6 shows the defects of the computer system.  The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the parts supplied by him was not defective. Admittedly the opposite party installed the PC system and given the CPU containing accessories.  Ext.A2, A3, A5 and A6 issued by opposite party shows the defects of the computer system. The service technician of opposite party cured the defects of the computer within one year free of cost. But the technician has not mentioned the reasons for the defects of PC system.   Opposite party installed the PC system and attended the first  complaint of the system within 9 days. After one year the opposite party has not cured the defects of the computer.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result the complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th  day of November 2011

                                                                              Sd/-

Seena.H

President

                                                                                Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

                                                                                Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

  

 

 

Ext.A1 – Installation Report No.604 dtd.8/11/08 of opposite party  

Ext.A2 – Warranty call Report No.91 dtd.17/11/08 of opposite party  

Ext.A3 –  Warranty call Report No.619 dtd.26/11/08 of opposite party  

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of counterfoil of cheque No.258851 drawn on SBI,

             Keralassery                 

Ext.A5 – Warranty call Report No.638 dtd.10/12/08 of opposite party     

Ext.A6 – Warranty call Report No.1061 dtd.Nil of opposite party     

Ext.A7 –Letter dated8/3/10 sent by opposite party to the complainant   

Ext.A8 – Copy of letter dated 25/2/10 addressed to opposite party by the

             complainant  

Ext.A9 – Copy of lawyer notice dated 22/03/10 sent to opposite party by the

             complainant

Ext.A10 – Registered blank cover No.RL 08202180 4 IN

Ext.A11 series  – Bills (10 Nos) issued by Netline Systems, Ottapalam.

Ext.A12 –  Undertaking of Netline Systems, Ottapalam regarding service of

               complainant’s system

 

 

Ext.B1 –  Cash Bill (original) No.253 dtd.17/11/08 issued by opposite party

Ext.B2 –  Delivery chalan No.180 dated 17/11/08 issued by opposite party

Ext.B3 – Letter dated 30/7/2010 sent by opposite party to the complainant  

Ext.B4 series – Postal receipts and acknowledgement card.                 

Ext.B5 – Service Report No.757   

 

 

C1 - Copy of sale tax returns from the period from 1/11/08 to 30/11/08

 

 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.