PER SHRI.S.S. PATIL – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) This is a complaint regarding defective computer PC Model 33 M purchased by the Complainant, deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as well as unfair trade practice by announcing winner scheme to promote the product but not implementing that scheme.
2) The facts of the case, as alleged by the Complainant are that, the Complainant has purchased Zenith Computer – Model 33 M from Opposite Party No.1. It was booked by the Complainant on 27/6/06 and it was the last day of double promotion scheme launched by the Opposite Parties. Under this scheme, there were four chances to win. As per this scheme there was one sure gift offer and a chance to win full refund of computer price for 5 lucky customers every day. The said computer was installed on 01/07/06 by Opposite Party No.1.
3) On 01/08/06 one Shri. Azim Odhekar, the Engineer from Opposite Party No.1 came to the Complainant to connect internet and TV Tuner Card while doing this, he dropped the TV and caused damage to the Sony new brand TV.
4) The Complainant further stated that the common features were not provided. The Complainant had to pay separately for them.
5) Software was old & outdated.
6) Computer takes much time to start and close.
7) Demonstration about TV Tuner and remote not shown / adjusted.
8) Speakers and Modem charged separately.
9) Floppy drive not provided.
10) Antivirus Software installed in the PC was of 2004 and its validity was upto September, 2006.
a) Finally the Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of TV.
b) Compensation of Rs.35,000/- as the cost of PC.
c) Compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony.
d) Cost of stationery, transport, etc Rs.10,000/-.
e) Fine to be paid to Court – Rs.4,00,000/-.
11) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents –
a) An advertisement of Zenith and Intel, Premium PC Model 33 M.
b) Invoice No.S/378, dtd.27/06/06.
c) Invoice No.S/406.
d) Letter dtd.29/08/06 to the Opposite Party No.1
e) Complainant’s letter dtd.29/09/06 to Opposite Party No.1.
f) Complainant’s letter dtd.27/11/06 to both Opposite Parties.
g) Opposite Party No.1’s letter dtd.15/12/06 to the Complainant.
h) Complainant’s letter dtd.11/01/07 to the Opposite Parties.
i) Complainant’s letter dtd/22/03/7 to the Opposite Parties.
12) The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties. They appeared in the Forum and submitted their written statements. Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and specifically stated that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the cause of action has not arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum etc.
13) The Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the Complainant had booked the computer from the Opposite Party No1 but denied the double promotion scheme offer. But it has been specifically mentioned that the scheme was directly given by Opposite Party No.2 and other details regarding the scheme are not with Opposite Party No.1. The fact of dropping the TV and causing damage to the TV was denied and further stated that this fact was not brought to its notice in time and the concerned engineer is not with Opposite Party No.1 at present.
14) So far as, the benefits of the Double Promotion Scheme is concerned the Opposite Party has stated that the Complainant was instructed through its letter dtd.15/02/06 to approach M/s. Intel Corporation who had launched that scheme.
15) Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement stated that the Opposite Party No.2 is not concerned for the claim of the Complainant regarding the dropping and damaging TV as the incident has happened at the residence of the Complainant and the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1 is the concerned person. Opposite Party No.2 further averred that the PC was installed on 01/07/06. it was also submitted that the scheme was launched by Intel Company and both the Opposite Parties have nothing to do with the implementation of that scheme. It also submitted that the prayer for compensation is baseless and irrelevant. The Opposite Party has further added that even in the complaint, there no utterance of any manufacturing defect in the PC. Finally both Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
16) The Opposite Party No.1 filed affidavit of evidence alongwith xerox copy of its letter dtd.15/12/06 and customer call service report dtd.01/07/6 regarding installation of New Zenith PC. Opposite Party No.2 also filed affidavit of evidence. The Complainant filed affidavit of evidence and written argument.
We perused all the above mentioned documents and heard the Complainant in person, the Ld.Advocate of the Opposite Party No.1 and representative of Opposite Party No.2 and our findings are as follows -
17) The Complainant had purchased Zenith Premium PC – Model 33 M (P4 3-6) on 27/06/06 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.32,150/-. This PC was installed at the residence of the Complainant on 01/07/08. The Complainant has attached the xerox copy of paper cutting showing advertisement of the Zenith Premium PC Model 33 M its price was shown Rs.29,000/-. The name Zenith is displayed at the top of the advertisement space and in the round conspicuously follows by words “Zenith is unbeatable” with “INTEL DOUBLE PROMTION”. It is also displayed as “Zenith recommends Microsoft Windows XP Home. By an Intel Processor based Zenith Premium PC and you could benefit two ways. First you could be one of the 5 people who get their money back every day. Besides, you will also enjoy assured discounts increases your chances / 4 chances of winging by buying a genuine Windows XP Media Centre Edition. To participate, logon to www.intel.com in double or contact the showrooms / dealers below. 18) From the advertisement it is seen that the sale of the product Zenith and Intel had been promoted by the advertisement. In the advertisement it is mentioned that Intel presents “DOUBLE PROMOTION Buy any Intel based PC, 5 winners get cash back every day.” From these wording it appears that this ‘Double Promotion’ had been launched by ‘Intel’ but the product premium PC Model 33 M had been promoted in their advertisement. However, it is not cleared as to how the 5 winners get cash back every day, who would be the winner, how the winners would be decided (chosen). Therefore, the advertisement was vague. The Complainants winning in this contest was not certain. The procedure for becoming winner was not mentioned. Both the Opposite Parties have denied that they had lodged the scheme. They have specifically stated that Intel had lodged the scheme.
19) It is also mentioned in the advertisement that “To participate logon to www.intel.com/in/ double or contact the showroom / dealers listed below. It is not clear from the Complainant and other documents submitted by the Complainant whether he had participated by loging on the above website. The documents submitted by the Complainant do not show that he had contacted Intel in this respect. Therefore the allegation made by the Complainant regarding the scheme of double promotion is not substantiated against the Opposite Parties. The xerox copy advertisement cutting submitted by the Complainant does not show the date on which this advertisement was published and the newspaper in which it was published. 20) As per the complaint the defects in the Zenith Computer is – ‘It takes too much time to get started and to get closed, software is old & outdated, its validity was upto September, 2006. These allegations require independent experts opinion, rather the opinion of the independent person who has examined the computer and who is well versed in the computer / electronic instruments like computers. In this case the complainant has made his own averment without any such supporting evidence. Therefore, these allegations regarding the slow start & closure are also not substantiated.
21) The other allegation is that the speakers and modem are charged separately. In this respect the Complainant has not produced the price list of the product. The xerox copy of the advertisement cannot be considered as the price list of the computer. The Complainant has not any document to show that the prices of speaker and modem are included in the price of the computer. Even it is not clear to what price the computer was agreed to be purchased. The Complainant has produced the copy of the tax invoice showing that the items mentioned in this tax invoice are purchased by the Complainant. From these invoices it is not established that the Opposite Party No.1 has charged extra price than agreed.
22) The other allegation of the Complainant is “the floppy drive is a common feature of PC, though shown in the manual, not provided.” In this respect also, the Complainant has not produced the manual and anything which shows that the Opposite Party No.1 was supposed to provide floppy drive alongwith the computer. The Opposite Party No.1 in it’s letter dtd.15/12/06, had communicated to the Complainant in these words “M/s. Zenith Computer does not come alongwith modem, floppy drive and speakers.” Therefore, this allegation is also not substantiated with any documentary proof.
23) The Complainant has further alleged that the software installed in PC / loaded are old and outdated. Antivirus software installed in PC was of 2004 and its validity was upto September, 2006. In this connection there is no any independent proof to establish this default.
24) Regarding the allegation of dropping the TV, it is in the letter of the Complainant dtd.29/08/06 “we both lifted the TV he dropped it on the floor, when the two of them were holding the TV how only one can drop the TV set ? Again the Complainant has not submitted the documentary proof to show that the TV was damaged. No repairing charges are on record. It is mentioned that the Sony TV Technician told the Complainant that there is a problem in picture tube but it is not proved by the documentary or independent evidence. Only averment of the Complainant is not sufficient to prove the deficiency or default or fix the liability of the Opposite Parties.
25) Allegation of TV Tuner function is also only the averment without any cognate evidence. The Complainant has submitted the complaint, the receipt of the goods purchased by him and letters addressed to the Opposite Parties. However, he has not given any documentary proof or any other independent evidence to establish the defect in the goods purchased or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Only a xerox copy of some advertisement without any date showing the product of the Opposite Party No.2 and launching certain scheme is not sufficient to prove the unfair trade practice employed by the Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, we do not find merits in the complaint. We pass the following order –
O R D E R
i) Complaint No.211/2007 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii) Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties.
