Date of filing: 09.12.2013.
Date of disposal: 03.12.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 3rd day of December, 2014
C.C.No.43 of 2014
Between:
M/s M.V.R. College of Engineering & Technology, Rep: by its Principal Dr. Khambampati Venkata Samba Siva Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 48 years, Beside Hanuman Statue, NH-9, Paritala, Kanchikacharla Mandal, Krishna District.
…..Complainant.
And
Vividha IT Solutions, Rep: by its Director H. Muralidhara Rao, D.No.1-3-6, Street No.4, Vikrampuri Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad – 500 007
.. … Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 25.11.2014, in the presence of Sri M. Sambasiva Rao, advocate for complainant; Sri A. Sanjay Kumar, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards purchase and installment of equipment, to pay Rs.24,818/- paid to BSNL due to the inefficient service of opposite party device, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages, for costs and other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The opposite party is doing business in the network components and the complainant believing the representations made by opposite party, placed purchase order with the opposite party on 7-3-2012 to supply the network components 1) Canna 24005g broad band outdoor wireless solutions from MRO-TEK, 2) 2.4 Ghz24dBi Grid antena and A1-24 (lighting arrestor), which are used to access internet service. The said product was installed by the opp.,party in the complainant's college by collecting Rs.5,000/- and the cost of product was Rs.50,000/- with one year warranty. Accordingly the opposite party installed the equipment in the college of complainant in June, 2012 and it was worked on that day only and from the next date, it did not work. The complainant called the opposite party number of times and the technicians of opposite party came to the college two times and made adjustments, but finally directed them to courier the wireless access point to one Mariya Ravi, Manager, Micro-Tek Ltd., who replied that the device was burnt due to high volgate, which is false and the opposite party did not repair the same. As such the complainant paid an amount of Rs.24,818/- to BSNL o 21-3-2012 as the opposite party failed to fulfill his service. The complainant sustained loss of time and money besides mental agony. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.8-11-2013 to the opposite party, but the same was returned on 11-11-2013. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed its version denying the material averments of the complaint and contended that the complaint is liable to be rejected/dismissed for non joinder of manufacturer of MRO-Tech and that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party. It is further contended that the complainant himself purchased the instrument with free will as he is an expert in IT solutions and that he approached the opposite party for installation of net work by choosing the instrument from MRO Tech Ltd., and the opposite party is nothing to do with the manufacturing of the component and that the opposite party is only a mere technician. It is further contended that, subsequent to the installation of components, the complainant informed the same to opposite party and the opposite party being technician verified the component and found spoiled and later replaced it with new one and the manufacturer opined that the component is spoiled due to high voltage. After few days, the complainant made a complaint as to the working of replaced unit, then the opposite party opined that the instruments manufactured by MRO Tech Ltd., Ballari and that they may not face power fluctuations i.e. high voltage and low voltage and advised to purchase another company. It is further contended that, in spite of advice of opposite party, the complainant interested to purchase the instrument manufactured by MRO Tech Ltd., and that the opposite party is not at all even responsible for their interested options chosen by them and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant failed to file his affidavit in spite of granting sufficient time. But, however Ex.A1 to A13 are on his behalf. The authorized person of opposite party filed affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B6 on its behalf.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in supplying the defective net work components to complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
Point No.1:
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), it is clear that the complainant basing on the quotations submitted by the opposite party under Ex.A1 and A2 dt.25.1.2012 and 9.2.2012 placed purchase order for supply of net work components with the opposite party on 7.3.2012 under Ex.A3. Perusal of Ex.A3 discloses that the complainant placed purchase order for Canna 24005g/ext/48, 2.4 Ghz24dBi Grid Antenna and A1-24 (lightning arrestor) with the opposite party for consideration of Rs.50,000/- besides installation charges of Rs.5,000/-. Ex.A5 Demand Draft dt.21.3.2012 discloses that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.27,500/- i.e. half of the agreed amount to opposite party. Further Ex.A13 certificate discloses that the complainant paid the remaining amount also by way of cheque of Swarna Bank dt.19-5-2012. Ex.A6 delivery challan dt.25.4.2012 discloses that the said products are delivered and Ex.A7 invoice dt.25.4.2012 discloses the payment made towards service charges by complainant. Ex.A11 establishes the issuance of legal notice by complainant to opposite party and Ex.A12 discloses the return of said noice. As such, from the above documentary evidence, it is clear that the complainant placed purchase order for the components and paid the amount of Rs.55,000/-.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that the team lead by one Rajasekhar installed the equipment in the college in June, 2012 and the said equipment worked for only one day and did not work since the next day itself and the technicians of opposite party attended for two times, but of no use and finally the opposite party directed to send the wireless access point to one Mariya Ravi, Manager, Micro-TeK Ltd., Bangalore who replied that the device was burnt due to high voltage. The correspondence by way of e-mails under Ex.A8 to A10 and Ex.B2 and B3 discloses that the component Canna24005g/Ext/48 was damaged due to burnout that has happened due to high voltage.
8. In this regard, the contention of opposite party is that they are not at responsible for the manufacturing defects and the complainant in spite of their advice chosen to purchase the subject components and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. manufacturer. Admittedly the complainant placed purchase order under Ex.A3 basing on the Ex.A1 and A2 quotations given by opposite party. Perusal of Ex.A1 and A2 discloses that the opposite party mentioned that they are submitting the best quote and the item description are noted as 'make – MRO-TEK'. It is not the contention of opposite party that the complainant asked for quotation of products of 'MRO-TEK' make only. Further the opposite party also not filed any documentary proof with regard to said contention. In the absence of any such proof, it is not safe to rely on the averments of opposite party that the complainant himself chosen the said products. As and when the complainant asked for quotation, it is the duty of the opposite party to quote for best products, in light of the fact that the opposite party itself admitted that the products of “MRO-TEK” will not face high voltages. As such giving quotation of defective products, though having knowledge about the same, is nothing but unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and further being technician failed to rectify the defect also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
9. So far as the contention of opposite party is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of manufacturer is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the complainant basing on the quotation given by opposite party has chosen to purchase the components make by MRO-TEK and the complainant himself has no knowledge about the manufacturer. If at all the opposite party suggests another manufacturer who will provide best quality, the complainant will have chosen the same. Further there is contract/agreement between the opposite party and the complainant for installation of components etc., manufactured by MRO-TEK. Though the contention of opposite party and correspondence by way of e-mails as stated supra discloses that the said product was spoiled due to high voltage. But the opposite party has not taken any steps to get the component examined through the expert to know whether it was spoiled due to high voltage or not. They filed simply photographs. Further the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the parties of his own choice and the opposite party has to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt and cannot throw the blame on others. However, as discussed in para No.8 that the acts of opposite party are nothing but unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, we inclined to answer this point in favour of complainant.
10. It is the further contention of complainant is that as the opposite party did not repair the said equipment, he paid Rs.24,818/- to BSNL under Ex.A4 Demand Draft dt.21.3.2012. It is pertinent to note that the complainant himself averred in his complaint that the opposite party people installed the equipment in June, 2012 and the same was worked for one day and did not work from the next day. But perusal of Ex.A4 DD discloses that the complainant paid the amount to BSNL on 21.3.2012. Peculiarly Ex.A5 DD also discloses the payment to opposite party on 21.3.2012. As such the said contention of complainant cannot be accepted and the complainant is not entitled for Rs.24,818/- paid to BSNl as sought for in the prayer.
Point No.2
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant besides cost of Rs.1000/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The complainant is directed to return the components to the opposite party under proper acknowledgment and the opposite party after receipt of same, pay the amount. Time for compliance is one month. The other claims of complainant shall be dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 3rd day of December, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 25.01.2012 Photocopy of quotation issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A2 09.02.2012 Photocopy of quotation issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A3 07.03.2012 Photocopy of purchase order issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A4 21.03.2012 Photocopy of DD for Rs.24,818/-
Ex.A5 21.03.2012 Photocopy of DD for Rs.27,500/-
Ex.A6 25.04.2012 Photocopy of delivery challan/invoice.
Ex.A7 25.04.2012 Photocopy of invoice.
Ex.A8 18.10.2012 Photocopy of mail from Krishna Pattar to Raja Sekhar.
Ex.A9 26.10.2012 Photocopy of mail Krishna Pattar to Raja Sekhar.
Ex.A10 08.05.2013 Photocopy of mail Krishna Pattar to Raja Sekhar.
Ex.A11 08.11.2013 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A12 Returned postal cover.
Ex.A13 12.02.2014 Original certificate.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of mail.
Ex.B2 24.06.2014 Photocopy of reply mail.
Ex.B3 24.06.2014 Photocopy of status and product mail.
Ex.B4 Photocopy of picture showing broad band
Ex.B5 Photocopy of MROTEK service center details.
Ex.B6 Photocopy of MROTEK details.
PRESIDENT (FAC).
