Complaint Case No.

1204 of 2009

Date of Institution
:
24.08.2009

Date of Decision

:

04.11.2009

Kultar Singh Saini, HM-133, Phase-IV, SAS Nagar Mohali 160 062

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Alpha Computer Services, SCO No.483-84, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

..…Opposite Party

CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh.Ajay Mahajan, Adv. for OP.



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

The complainant purchased one TFT System (duly assembled) from OP on 30.8.2008 for Rs.24,960/- vide Ann.I having one year warranty. It is averred that the said system started giving problem from the very beginning and the problem was brought to the notice of OP a number of times i.e. about 42 times on different dates by making personal visits. The OP took the CPU five times and repaired it but in spite of that the defect could not be rectified, resultantly, the system is not at all working and lying unused. Ultimately, a legal notice (Ann.II) was sent to OP for taking back the computer system being defective one and refund the price thereof but the OP in its reply (Ann.III) took a wrong & different stand by stating that they only supplied the computer parts and not the assembled computer. It is also averred that the complainant purchased the computer system especially for his daughter who is an engineering student and she was to get various information from the internet related to her field but that could not been done because of defective computer system supplied by the OP. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which he has to undergo mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss.

2] OP filed reply and denied that the complainant ever purchased a TFT System duly assembled from them. It is stated that answering OP only sold different parts of the computer to the complainant vide Ann.I, which were got assembled by the complainant itself from somewhere else. It is also stated that the complainant never contacted the answering OP with regard to any problem in their computer parts. It is also denied that the answering OP took CPU of complainant five times for repair. It is submitted that the OP never reloaded the window as alleged. It is also submitted that in fact Microsoft window is a product of Microsoft Company, which is very costly item and any customer who intends to purchase has to pay for the same. It is further submitted that perhaps the complainant after getting the computer assembled got the window illegally installed in it and since the said window appears to be corrupt, therefore, the brain/window became inoperational several times and due to this reason, the complainant could not operate the computer. The complainant should have purchased window vista or window XP product of Microsoft Company by paying the product price and get it installed and licensed from the said company for effective results. It is next submitted that the answering OP offered to exchange the defective computer parts with new one as a goodwill gesture as the same were to be replaced by the manufacturer which was not acceded by the complainant. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4] We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have perused the record.

5] The contention of the OP is that it had sold the computer parts and not the assembled computer to the complainant vide Annexure I. The OP in support of its contention produced Annexure R-2 and R-3 to stress upon the point that where the assembled computer is sold by them, they issue such like sale invoices. This argument is not sufficient to prove their contention. Through these two invoices HP/Compaq Presario Desktop with computer hardware and software was sold to Labmate Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Both the invoices (Annexure R-2 & R-3) relate to one and the same purchaser. However, Annexure R-2 was issued on 2.6.2009 and R-3 on 17.7.2009. We cannot believe that during the entire year of 2009 only two computers were sold by the OP. One thing is certain that Annexure R-2 bears receipt No.960 and R-3 receipt No.968 which shows that in between 6 other invoices were issued. If we peruse Annexure R-1, it bears No.901. Had the contention of the OP been correct, they would have produced all the cash memos/invoices from 902 to 967 to prove as to how many other persons they have sold such like assembled computers. The non production of those cash memos/invoices requires an adverse inference to be raised against the OP that in all those cases they had sold assembled computers to various persons that is why they have not produced those cash memos. Annexure I shows that all the necessary computer parts were sold to the complainant with which the computer could be assembled. We cannot presume that the complainant would purchase the computer parts from the OP and would go to some other computer shop to get the same assembled. This contention of the OP, therefore, cannot be believed that through Annexure I they had sold only computer parts and not an assembled computer.

6] Before filing the present complaint, the complainant issued a notice (Annexure II) to the OP. It was mentioned that the engineers of the OP visited the premises of the complainant 42 times till 29.7.2009 and took the CPU 5 times from his residence to check/diagnose the problem but ultimately failed to put it into working order. The OP had given a reply (Annexure IV) to this notice. The para relevant to the visits was denied as follows : “You have mentioned so many dates of my visit to your house which is not correct.” It is, therefore, clear that the dispute was only about the number of visits, which according to the OP was not correct. It was never mentioned by the OP in Annexure IV that he had not visited his premises at all or had not taken the CPU from him. The reply Annexure IV, therefore, supports the contention of the complainant that the computer purchased from the OP was not working properly and even in spite of numerous visits made by the OP they failed to put the computer in order.

7] It is also contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the hardware would be useful only if the complainant purchased software which is a costly item. He referred to Annexure R-1 vide which Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium was sold for Rs.5,600/-. He has also referred to Annexure R-2 and R-3 through which also Windows XP Professional were sold for Rs.6,500/-. His contention is that the complainant has not been able to prove if he purchased the windows and, therefore, the question of the computer working properly does not arise. This argument also is devoid of merit. When the complainant purchased the computer worth Rs.24,960/- it is obvious that he had also got installed the software therein. Otherwise keeping the computer without software is unimaginable. Even the OP admitted that the complainant may have got illegally installed the windows in the computer which appears to have been corrupt and, therefore, the computer became inoperational several times as mentioned in para 3 of the reply. The contention of the complainant is that in fact the software was also installed by the OP but it did not work properly in the computer due to which he had been making phone calls to the OP to make the computer functional. The windows were obviously installed by the OP and if the same were not genuine, he alone is to be blamed for the harassment to the complainant.

8] Even after so many complaints, the OP has not made the computer functional. In the reply (Annexure IV) submitted by the OP it was promised that in case any part of the computer is defective, as per the terms of invoice he undertook to repair/replace the same under the warranty period. Needless to mention that the computer was sold on 30.8.2008 and this undertaking was given on 10.8.2009 well within the period of warranty. The OP was, therefore duty bound to make the computer functional and also to pay compensation to the complainant for harassing him by not attending to the complaints made to him.

9] In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to make the computer functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing him harassment alongwith Rs.1,100/- as costs of litigation. If the amount is not paid and the computer is not repaired within the period of 15 days as mentioned above, the OP would refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.24,960/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum since 30.8.2008 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant alongwith the above mentioned compensation amount and litigation costs.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. The file be consigned.