F.A.NO.407/2006
[Against order in C.C.No.283/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)]

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

Krishna & Co., |

rep. by its Manager, | Appellant/Opposite Party

289, Arcot Road, |

Chennai 600 024. |

Vs.

K. Gauthami, |

Old No.156, New No.14, | Respondent/Complainant

Vannier Street, |

Choolaimedu, |

Chennai 600 094. |

The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant /opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation on account of defective supply of the computer, Rs.2 lakhs towards damages, expenses and deficiency in service and Rs.80,000/- towards cost of computer together with interest from date of purchase of the computer from 07.09.2002 and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.08.08.2005 in C.C.283/2003.



This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.11.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this commission made the following order:



Counsel for the Appellant /Opposite party : M/s.V.Santhanan & P.Ravi

Shankar Rao, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant : M/s.S.L.Sudarsanam &

V.Shankar, Advocates.

HON’BLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT



1. The Opposite Party in C.O.P.283/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), having failed to oppose the claim successfully, has come to this Commission, as appellant.



2. The respondent herein as complainant has filed a complaint before the lower Forum, seeking for the recovery, for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- with cost, accusing the opposite party/appellant, as if they have supplied defective computer, that as agreed, they have also not supplied the necessary accessories, that because of this fact, the complainant who had purchased the computer for her development, unable to do the same effectively, that several complaints also did not yield any satisfactory performance, and that even after the issue of legal notice, the opposite party failed to replace the computer, which amounts to deficiency and this way for his sufferings, she is entitled to the above said sum.



3. The appellant/opposite party admitting the purchase of the computer from them by the complainant, would contend that it is incorrect to say that the computer supplied by the opposite party was not functioning properly, that the service engineer who inspected the computer also submitted a report and based on that, the opposite party also offered to replace the 2000 watts speakers with 2500 speakers, that the system is in good condition and only due to the lack of proper knowledge about the system, the complainant is unable to manage the same, that even now the opposite party is ready and willing to rectify the mistake, if any, in the system, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying the other allegations also, disputing the quantum of compensation further.



4. The lower forum, based upon the above pleadings, as well as, evaluating the documents exhibited on the side of the complainant, felt that the computer supplied by the opposite party was unsatisfactory in performance, that despite the complaints, the opposite party also failed to rectify the defects, and in this view, they have committed deficiency in service, thereby, ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- as per the order dated 08.08.2005, which is under challenge.



5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.



6. The appellant, in the Written Submission, would contend that the lower forum had not followed the procedure as mandated under the Act and that the lower forum has not offered an opportunity to remedy and to rectify the defects and that when the complainant has not produced any substantial proof, granting compensation of Rs.20,000/- is against the law and in this view, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed.



7. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that since in the Written Version itself, the appellant has admitted that they are willing to rectify the defects in the computer and having failed to do so, that would amount to deficiency in service, which was properly considered by the lower forum, awarding only reasonable amount by way of compensation, which cannot be interfered, whereas, it should be confirmed.



8. By going through the written submissions of either side as well as perusing the documents relied on by the parties and taking into account certain points available in the Written Version of the appellant, giving our anxious thought, it is our considered opinion, that there is no error of judgement, in the order passed by the lower forum warranting our interference to nullify the same.



9. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Personal Computer from the opposite party, totally paying a sum of Rs.61,750/- as pleaded and the same was also installed in the premises of the complainant. According to the complainant, the “Boss Scorpio Multi Media Home PC” supplied to the complainant, was not functioning effectively, and in fact, there are incomplete supply of items and performance also not satisfactory. On complaint, as seen from the inspection report of the opposite party, on 27.12.2002, the Service Engineer inspected the Computer and noted in the report about the PC’s performance “POOR”. Thereafter, the complainant also reported to the opposite party, that some of the accessories were not supplied and the supplied items also not having the utility value, as agreed and one of the item so specifically stated is 2500 watts speaker agreed to supply, whereas 2000 watts speaker alone supplied. When this was pointed out, it is also agreed in the written version that the opposite party is willing to supply 2500 watts, whereas, the complainant alone has not taken the same. Because of the poor performance as reported by the Service Engineer, it seems, at the request of the complainant, Service Engineer from “Hi-Grow System” inspected the “Boss Scorpio Multimedia Home PC” on 20.11.2004 and after inspection, he has given a report which reads “This is to certify that the “BOSS SCORPIO” Multimedia Home PC bearing S.No.0900090527 owned by Miss.V.K.Gauthmi, Old No.156/3, New No.14, Vannier Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094, is totally not in working condition. We have thoroughly inspected the origin of the problem cannot be identified, since some of the essential driver CD’s have not been supplied by the computer seller and particularly seal of the computer case is not to be opened by others, so we could not make any try to rectify the problem. After a thorough inspection we observe the following remarks.

INSPECTION REPORT:

1. All necessary Driver CD’s are not found since it is not provided by

the seller.

2. Component parts of the system may be not aligned properly”. The above report coupled with the report given by the Service Engineer of Boss Technologies, would unquestionably suggest, that the computer supplied by the opposite party was not at all working properly, and therefore it is to be held that having supplied the poor computer, the opposite party failed to supply other items as agreed, as well as, and failed to carryout the necessary repairs also, so as to make the computer functionable, since the computer was purchased by the complainant for her personal use, being a qualified person as proved by the records. The non-response on the part of the opposite party, in replacing the computer or making necessary repairs, to make the computer functionable, to be construed as deficiency in service. The lower forum considering the above facts, has come to a conclusion, that for the deficiency in service, the opposite party should be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is very very reasonable, cannot be described as exorbitant, though exorbitant claim was made.



10. The submission of the appellant in the Written Argument, that Proof Affidavit was not filed, is factually incorrect and as seen from the records, the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit and if the opposite party has not filed any Proof Affidavit, it is their mistake, for which, we cannot find fault with the Forum. For the above said reasons, we find no infirmity of any kind in the order of the lower forum and on merit, it requires to be confirmed.



11. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There will be no order as to cost in the appeal.