D.O.F - 20-03-2013

D.O.O - 11-02-2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

                         Present:      Sri. Roy Paul                     :    President

                                           Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :    Member

                                          Sri. Babu Sebastian           :    Member

                                   Dated this the 11^th day of February , 2015

CC.No.78/2013

Sajeevan.M,

Megha Mayoor,                                                   :  Complainant

Temple Gate (PO),

Thalassery – 670 102.  

1.  Computer Care,

 Thavakkara Road,

 Kannur – 670002.

          (Rep. by Adv.R.P. Remesan)

1. H.P. India Salels Private Limited,             :  Opposite Parties                                                                                                  Opposite party

Tower-D-6^th Floor,

Global Business Park,

Hariyana- 122002.

          (Rep. by Adv. A.K. Sajith Kumar))

                                                     O R D E R

Sri. Roy Paul, President

This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties for replacement of the Monitor and also for a compensation.

The complainant’s case in brief is that:  The complainant purchased a computer from opposite party No.1 on 23-09-2011 for an amount of Rs26,300 with a warranty of 1 year for CPU and 3 years for the Monitor.  Subsequent to the purchase of the computer, it become defective on several occasion and it has been repaired by the technician  of the opposite party.  Due to the defect of the CPU it was repaired by opposite party No.1 and when the Monitor found defective,  the opposite party No.2 replaced the same, but instead of  supplying a new one the opposite party No2 installed a Monitor  seems to be fresh i.e.  refurbished.  Though the complainant demanded new one it was in vain due to the  adamant attitude of the opposite party No.2.  Hence the complaint for cost of the monitor with compensation from the opposite parties on account of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

The opposite parties  appeared before the Forum on summons and filed their  version contending that there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.  The opposite party No.1 contended that he is not sure about the deal with complainant and his pleadings in the version are based on some fictitious assessments.  The opposite party No.2 straight away denied their alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice through their version.  The opposite party No.2 admitted that due to the defect of the Monitor they have replaced a ‘refurbished’ Monitor and it is also added that they are ready to install another refurbished monitor in that place.  He contended that there was no manufacturing  defect.

On the basis of the pertinent rival contention raised by both sides in their pleadings the following issues were framed.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in the  

           part of the opposite parties towards the complainant as a consumer?

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the Monitor?
2. If so what about  the reliefs and cost?

The complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and cross was examined by the Opposite party No.1 and the documents produced by PW1 marked as Ext. A1 to A3 series.  The opposite party No.1 adduced evidence as DW1 and was cross examined by complainant.  Though the opposite party No.2 filed a detailed version contending so many aspects, has not adduced any evidence or even cross examined the PW1.

        For the sake of convenience we took the issues together for consideration.

Issue No. 1 to 3:

          The complainant adduced evidence to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint as PW1.  The Ext. A3 series (8 in Nos.) will show that the computer showed so  many complaints during a  short span of period after the purchase.  It is true that the opposite party No.1 has solved the problem through their technician in time in all those occasions.    After replacement of Mother Board no defects occurred for CPU.  From the evidence it is seen that the technicians from opposite party No.1 found the defects of the Monitor and advised the PW1 to register a complaint in the toll free number of opposite party No.2.  Opposite party No.2 in their version has admitted that they replaced a refurbished Monitor.  It is also in evident that the warranty period for the Monitor is three years.  The complaint for the Monitor arosed within the warranty period. It is true that the complainant has not taken any steps to prove the manufacturing defect of the Monitor, but the opposite party No.1’s  technician advised the complainant to register a complaint in opposite party No.2’s number for the defect.  Moreover the opposite party No.2 replaced the Monitor on seeing that it was defective.  So the action and admission form the side of opposite parties would prove the manufacturing defect of the Monitor.  So  the complainant is entitled to get a fresh Monitor in place of his old one.   On that aspect both the opposite parties have  absolutely failed to provide necessary service to the complainant so there is deficiency of service in the part of both the opposite parties jointly and severally.  That amounts to unfair trade practice in their part.  There is no  rebuttal evidence either from the side  DW1 or opposite party No.2 before the Forum.  Hence we found the issue No.1 and 2  in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.  Since the issue No.1 and 2 found against the opposite parties the complainant is entitled for the reliefs with a reasonable compensation.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to make good the loss and damages sustained to the complainant.  The defective Monitor has to be replaced by a new one with same model and specification.  We fix the compensation amount at Rs3,000 in a moderate rate with a cost of Rs1,000.  The issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

           In the result, the complaint is allowed.  Both the opposite parties are directed to replace a brand new Monitor with same model and specification or to refund Rs5,209 (Rupees five thousand two hundred and nine only) to the complainant alongwith Rs3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at the liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer protection Act.

             Dated this the  11^th  day  of February,  2015

                           Sd/-                 Sd/-                 Sd/-

                      President           Member            Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1-Bill dated 23-09-2011

A2- Letter issued by O.P. dated 11-03-2011

A3- Job Card (8 in  Nos.)

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

DW1- Shine.P

                                                                    //Forwarded by order//

       SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT