KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APEAL 180/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 14.5.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF,Thiruvananthpauram in OP.No.425/01 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Manager, : APPELLANTS Benz Computers, Van Rose Junction, Bakery, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Manager, Benz Computers, A unit of Benz Automobiles Ltd., 34/1884, G1, Padmanabha Chambers, Mamangalam, Cochin – 682025. (By Adv.U.K.Ramakrishnan) Vs. Viji.V, Vasanthi Nivas, : RESPONDENT Kammalakunnu, Koonthalloor, Chirayinkeezhu.P.O., Thiruvananthpauram -695304. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.425/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram and under orders to pay a sum of Rs.49500/- with future interest are 14.5% and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a computer for a sum of Rs.49500/- from the opposite parties and that from the very next day itself the computer was found to be defective. It is mentioned that the computer was repaired several times by the opposite parties. But still the computer was not working. The computer was purchased for the use of the younger brother of the complainant who is undergoing degree course in Electronics and Telecommunication; and she had purchased the computer after availing a bank loan. The complainant is also burdened to pay the bank loan. 3.The opposite parties has contended that there is no irreparable defect to the computer and that the same happened to be unworkable on account of the defective fittings and wrong use. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of CW1 the expert Commissioner and Exts.P1 to P19 and C1. 5. The Forum has found that it has been proved, especially from the evidence of the expert commissioner that computer is having basic manufacturing defects. It was also found that the complainant had to repay the bank loan with interest and hence ordered to refund the amount paid for the computer and also awarded compensation. 6. It is the contention of the appellant that the Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the amount claimed is Rs.10,00000/- apart from the value of the computer. At the time of filing of the complaint the Forum is having the pecuniary jurisdiction of only Rs.5,00000/-. It is stressed that the inherent lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured and that the same being a question of law can be raised at any time. The counsel has relied on the decision of National Commission in Quality Foils India Pvt.Ltd. vs Bank of Madura Ltd. and another, II(1996) CPJ 103 (NC) and TVS & Sons Vs. Cannanore Dist. Wholsale C-Op C.S Ltd. 1998 (1)KLT 942, in support. 7. We find that the lack of competence on the part of the Foru m has not been raised in the version filed. It is also seen from the judgments of the Forum that the above ground was not adjudicated before the Forum. Further, as pointed out by the counsel for the complainant/respondent the complaint has been filed by the complainant in person. Amicus curie was appointed by the Commission herein. It is also seen that the Forum has proceeded on the assumption that the amount of compensation claimed is Rs.5,00000/- as can be seen from the recitals in the judgment. The amount of compensation awarded as only Rs.20000/- It has been noted that strict rules of pleadings are not applied with respect to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Further no prejudice has been caused to the appellants in the matter. The decisions cited by the counsel for the appellants is not helpful to support his plea in this regard. Hence we find that the above contention as to lack of competence has no merits. Evidently as seen from the evidence of CW1 the expert commissioner and Ext.C1 report the computer had manufacturing defects. The complainant has produced the customer care notes etc that would show the computer was being repaired repeatedly; and still it was not working. Hence the case that the computer could have been replaced is not relevant as so much of time has been elapsed and the younger brother of the complainant would have been completed his course and the appellant had not so far opted for the same. In the circumstance we find no merits in the appeal filed. Hence the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
