CC Filed on 04.06.2009<br /> Disposed on 23.09.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 23rd day of September 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 42/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> V. Perumal,<br /> S/o. Venkata Chalm,<br /> Aged about 52 years,<br /> R/o. No. 16, Henry’s A.M. Lane,<br /> Cormandal Post,<br /> K.G.F.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. S. Ravindra & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> The Proprietor,<br /> M/s. Computer India,<br /> 1st Floor, Sooraj Building,<br /> Opp. Robertsonpet Police Station,<br /> Robertsonpet,<br /> K.G.F.<br /> <br /> Now carrying business at<br /> Indian Institute of Technology,<br /> Computer Education with Global Education,<br /> Opp: Telephone Exchange,<br /> Robertsonpet,<br /> K.G.F.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K. Muniyappa) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to provide a good working C.P.U set and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service, with costs and interest, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant purchased a computer set of Compaq Company for a sum of Rs.29,308/- on 08.11.2007 from OP and obtained a cash bill on the same day. The said computer system was covered with guarantee for one year from the date of purchase. It is alleged that the C.P.U (a main part of computer) supplied by the OP was not working properly and when complained to OP, he collected Rs.350/- for reformat charges and handed over the same to complainant. Even thereafter the C.P.U was not working properly. Therefore it was handed over to OP on 06.11.2008 before expiry of the guarantee period for rectification of defects. It is alleged that instead of returning the C.P.U after repair with good condition, the OP issued notice dated 29.01.2009 asking the complainant to take back the C.P.U and making other false allegations and this act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. It is alleged that the complainant got issued legal notice to OP on 12.03.2009 but the OP evaded to receive that notice and when complainant personally approached, the OP refused to effect the repairs or to replace a new C.P.U with good working condition. Therefore the complainant filed the present complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP appeared and contested the complaint. He admitted the sale of Compaq Computer set to complainant on 08.11.2007. He denied all other allegations made in the complaint. He contended that he is only a dealer for Compaq Computers and he sells the computer set to customers and he is not concerned with the service or repair of computer systems and that the complainant was explained that the complaint regarding the defect found in the computer system should be registered as per company service rules and that the complainant did not register the complaint and simply kept quiet. Further he contended that to keep goodwill he himself registered the complaint on his own costs, though it was not its duty and the complainant did not respond to various phone calls made by Company on 14th , 21st and 23rd of December and thereby the Company closed with complaint registered in respect of this C.P.U system. Therefore he contended that he was in no way responsible for it. Further he contended that ultimately when the system was checked by his technician it was found that the SMPS had gone and he installed new SMPS and it was made ready for working and the complainant was asked to receive back the C.P.U by paying the charges of new SMPS which was installed by this OP at his cost, but the complainant did not turn up. Further he contended that the present complaint is filed with an intention to spoil the reputation of this OP. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and the complainant filed the required documents. We heard the parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that there <br /> was deficiency in service by OP?<br /> 2. To what order?<br /> <br /> 6. After the considering the records and submissions of the parties our finding on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1 & 2: It is not in dispute that complainant purchased computer system on 08.11.2007 from OP. The complainant does not specifically say the date on which the C.P.U was not found working. The letter dated 29.01.2009 issued by OP to complainant shows that 10 days earlier to 06.11.2008 some defect in the C.P.U was first reported and at that time the OP found some software corruption and he rectified the same and the system was handed over to complainant in good condition and thereafter the C.P.U was again brought to OP on 06.11.2008 with complaint of sparks from the system. Therefore it appears that for the first time some defect was found in the C.P.U 10 days earlier to 06.11.2008 and before that the C.P.U was in proper working condition. It appears for replacing the corrupt software the OP might have collected Rs.350/- as reformat charges. The complainant again on 06.11.2008 brought the C.P.U to OP alleging that it was not working properly. The same letter dated 29.01.2009 of OP discloses that when it was brought second time it was complained that there were sparks from the system and when it was checked by technician it was found that the SMPS had gone. At this stage it appears the OP insisted that he is not supposed to effect service and the complainant should register his complaint on his own as per service rules prescribed by Company. It appears for such reply the complainant was not satisfied and he insisted to effect the repairs free of cost by OP himself. These facts can be gathered from the letter dated 29.01.2009 addressed to complainant by OP. <br /> <br /> The question therefore is whether OP was required to effect the service/repairs free of cost as the system was having some defect within the warranty period. The complainant has not produced the warranty card and its terms and conditions. However during arguments the complainant showed a manual issued by Compaq Company. The instructions contained in this manual show that the customer himself should register the complaint online to a particular number stating therein. The cash bill dated 08.11.2007 and the letter dated 29.01.2009 issued by OP show that he was dealer for Compaq Computers. There is no document on record that the OP was authorized repairer or service centre for effecting repairs of Compaq Computers. Therefore we think the say of OP that he was only a repairer but not an authorized service centre for effecting repairs, can be accepted. For the present the OP has replaced the defective SMPS. The value of the said SMPS is not forthcoming from the records. From the contentions raised by the OP it appears he is having some technician having knowledge in computer know-how. From the above facts and circumstances we think it is just and proper to direct the OP to handover the C.P.U system in working condition to complainant without claiming any charge for installing the new SMPS. The OP is at liberty to claim its price if any with Compaq Company. We think the said part SMPS may cost within Rs.1,000/-. <br /> <br /> For the above reasons we hold that there is no deficiency in service by OP, however the complainant may be permitted to take back his C.P.U system in working condition without paying any charge. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. The OP is directed to handover the C.P.U in working condition to complainant without claiming any charge. The complainant shall approach the OP shop for taking delivery of C.P.U. The parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of September 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />