DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th day of July 2011

Present : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member

: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 07/02/2011

(C.C.No.23/2011)

Mannil Vikraman,

S/o.Late K.Raman Nair,

Sasikala Sadan, Pangal,

Estate (PO), Puduppariyaram,

Palakkad, – 678 531. - Complainant

(By Party in Person)

V/s

1. Vipin.R,

M/s.Denz Computers,

Geethanjali Building,

Chandra Nagar

Palakkad – 678 007

(By Adv.P.Sreeprakash)

2. Venkat Subbu,

M/s.HCL Info Systems Ltd.

39/5673, Panampilli Nagar,

Amigo House, Thoundayil Road,

Cochin – 682 036.

3. Abdul Salam T

Chipset Computers,

Authd. Servicing Agency of HCL

10/436, Vas Buildings, V.H.Road,

Palakkad – 678 001. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

Complainant purchased a computer of HCL company on 1/10/2005 from DENZ computers and the purchase was by a loan granted by LIC of India. After the installation of the machine on 1/10/2005, started trouble from January 2006. The 1^st opposite party repaired the computer without charge since it was within the warranty period. After the warranty period the machine became trouble and the 1^st opposite party changed the RAM and paid Rs.1800/- on 20/12/2006. Thereafter on 19/5/2008 the complainant has paid Rs.550/- to the service charges to rectify the machine. On 26/8/2009 the system went off and paid Rs.780/- for changing the key board and service charges. Then the 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to change the mother board and the model of the machine. The complainant sent a registered letter to the company on 29/9/2009 stating the defects of the computer. But the company has not sent reply. Then regional office Ernakulam as the 2^nd opposite party contacted the complainant and assured him to attend the computer. Thereafter the 3^rd opposite party inspected the computer and paid Rs.1000/- on 28/7/2010. But again the machine became defects. The complainant contacted with opposite parties 2 & 3 through telephones and informed the trouble of the computer.

The complainant stated that the 2^nd opposite party did not inspect the computer after received Rs.1,000/- on 28/7/2010. Later 3^rd opposite party also did not initiate remedial actions to rectify the machine. Then the complainant approached one local repairer and paid Rs.850/- to repaired on 13/11/2010. After the warranty period the complainant has been paying each servicing and cost of machine parts for avoiding the machine repaired by a local repairer. But the negative attitude of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties compelled to approach a local repairer. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and mental agony to complainant. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and the cost of the proceedings.

Notice served to all opposite parties. But the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties absent. Hence 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties set exparte. The 1^st opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The computer purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose. The income from the use of the computer is not his livelihood. Hence complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the computer. The allegation of computer started giving trouble from June 2006 is denied by 1^st opposite party. Change of RAM alleged in the complaint is after the warranty period. The 1^st opposite party stated that change of RAM is due to the voltage fluctuation and not due to manufacturing defect. The service charges collected by the 1^st opposite party for the repair done on 19/5/2008. There is no deficiency in service in collecting Rs.780/- for the work done on 26/8/2009. The 1^st opposite party stated that none of the complaints were due to any manufacturing defects. The cause of complaints was due to improper use of the system by the complainant. The 1^st opposite party is unaware of the registered letter issued by the complainant and the assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. Hence the 1^st opposite party prays that extorted from the liability.

Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed chief affidavit. Complainant filed documents and Ext.A1 to Ext.A7 marked. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No.I

The 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant purchased the computer was for commercial purpose and the income from the use of the computer is not his livelihood. No evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to show that the complainant has used the computer for commercial purpose. Also the 1^st opposite party has not produced evidence to show the income from the computer. Mere statement cannot be considered as complainant is not a consumer. Hence the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The 1^st issue answered accordingly.

Issue No.II & III

Heard the matter and perused relevant documents on record. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defects of the computer. Also the complainant stated that the computer started trouble from the month of January 2006 and the technical staff of 1^st opposite party repaired without charges. Admittedly the complainant had purchased the computer from the 1^st opposite party. In Ext.A2 the warranty is 12 months from the date of installation or 13 months from the date of delivery, whichever is earlier. In the present case the complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party repaired the computer within the warranty period. Thereafter the complainant send a letter to the Managing Director of HCL Info Systems Ltd. Noida. Ext.A5 is the copy of letter. No objection raised by 1^st opposite party to marking of Ext.A5. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party was set exparte. Thereafter the 3^rd opposite party inspected the computer. In Ext.A6 the 3^rd opposite party received Rs.1000/- as service charge and SMPS on 28/7/2010. The say of the complainant that again the machine became defects and repeated telephone calls to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party for the period from July 2010 to October 2010. But not inspected and repaired the computer by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. In Ext.A7 the complainant produced the CDR details for the period from 01/4/2010 to 15/10/2010. In Ext.A6 the mobile No.of 3^rd opposite party is 9447197891.

In Ext.A7 series the complainant mentioned that 9446397891 and 9447197891 are the mobile numbers of 3^rd opposite party and 914842312040 is the phone number of 2^nd opposite party. No contradictory evidence was produced by the opposite parties. No version and no affidavit filed by 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Finally the complainant approached local repairer to repair the computer for Rs.850/- on 13/11/2010. The first contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party provide no service towards their customers. The 2^nd opposite party is the regional office of the HCL Info systems and 3^rd opposite party is the servicing agency of the company. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties not inspected the computer and repaired the defects. It is the bounden duty of opposite parties to provide service after sale. After accepting the notice the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties not present before the Forum. In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 & 3. Hence the complaint partly allowed. The complainant prays for an order directing the 1^st opposite party towards compensation and cost of the proceedings for selling a substandard machine for Rs.29,000/- and received Rs.3130/- as repairing charges. The complainant has not produced evidence to prove the manufacturing defects of the computer. The complainant admitted that the 1^st opposite party received the payment after the warranty period. So the 1^st opposite party exonerated.

We direct the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) as compensation for mental agony 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 realisation.

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

Smt. Preetha G Nair

Member

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Bill No.106 dtd.1/10/05 issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A2 – Warranty Card No.9604769

Ext.A3 - Copy of Sanction of persoanl computer advance issued by LIC.

Ext.A4 – Receipt No.350 dtd.19/5/08 issued by 1^st Opposite party

Ext.A5 - Copy of letter sent to MD, HCL Info Systems Ltd. Noida dated 29/9/09

by the complainant

Ext.A6 - Copy of Invoice No.0019 dtd.28/7/10 issued by Chipset IT service,

Palakkad

Ext.A7 - Copy of letter dtd.22/11/10 alongwith CDR details of mobile

No.9447943785 issued by DGM, BSNL, Trivandrum

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

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