Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant purchased from the second opposite party a computer manufactured by the first opposite party. The purchase was made on 26.11.2005. The complainant took an extended warranty by paying an additional sum of Rs.3857/-. According to him the computer started giving trouble during the warranty period and the second opposite party used to send his service personnel as and when he complained. However, he was not satisfied with the service provided by the second opposite party and therefore caused a legal notice on both the opposite parties. He asked them to take back the system and refund the money paid by him along with damages amounting to Rs.58,357/-. Only the second opposite party replied admitting the problem in the printer and delivered an allegedly new HP printer in place of the HCL printer without even seeking the complainant’s permission to such replacement. This act according to the complainant amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. He, further, says that replaced printer is, also, not working. <br /> 2. The complainant issued another legal notice taking strong exception to what the second opposite party had done. But the second opposite party refused to receive the notice. <br /> 3. The complainant’s case is that the entire system is not working and is lying idle. Hence, this complaint. He has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to take back the system and refund the money paid by him together with damages amounting to Rs.58,357/-. He, also, wants this Forum to punish the opposite parties for adopting Unfair Trade Practice. <br /> 4. Notice sent to the first opposite party was served. He was called out on the appointed day and as he remained absent he was placed ex parte. Notice sent to the second opposite party was returned with an endorsement from the postal department that the addressee “Refused”. Service was held sufficient and he was placed ex parte. <br /> 5. Since both opposite parties have abstained from the proceedings the following points arise for our consideration.<br /> I. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have sold him a defective computer system? <br /> II. Whether the complainant, further, proves that the second opposite party has not provided adequate service despite the extended warranty?<br /> III. What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records. Our findings are as under<br /> <br /> Point (i) : Partly in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point (ii) : In the negative.<br /> <br /> Point (iii) : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 7 POINT NO.(I):- The complainant has filed the invoice dated 26.11.2005 to show that he purchased a HCL Beanstalk computer from the second opposite party. He has, also, filed 8 service reports to show how the system started giving him problems soon after purchasing it. The first of the service report is dated 30.11.2005 when the web camera and TFT monitor were installed. The complainant has noted in the service report that the web camera was not working properly. A second complaint was given on 7.1.2006 when there was a network problem. But that appears to have been solved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the computer apparently worked well until 9.6.2006 when the complainant complained about the internet and the mouse not working. He has mentioned in the service report that nothing was working. But as per the service report the problem in the mouse was on account of settings and it appears to have been solved immediately. On 13.6.2006 there was a problem with the wireless keyboard and it was taken for servicing and a stand by keyboard was given. But the complainant has noted in the service report that the internet was still not working and the light in the CPU was not glowing. The keyboard and the internet were set right on 17.6.2006. The last of the service reports is dated 15.12.2006 when there was once again a problem with the mouse and keyboard. The complainant has noted in the service report that the system has remained idle for over 3 months due to problem in the printer.<br /> 8 From the above it becomes clear that the frequent problems in the computer system were mostly on account of improper handling rather than due to manufacturing defect. It is pretty clear thaty improper handling resulted in change in settings. Except the key board problem and the light of the CPU the other problems are apparently due to change in the settings. We have to come to this conclusion because the complainant has not got the computer examined by a commissioner. None of the service reports filed by the complainant point to any specific problem in the hardware. There is no complaint at any point of time that either the RAM, hard disc, mother board, processor, etc., was giving any problem. Even if there was any problem with any of the hardware the burden was on the complainant to prove the same. Computer is a delicate machine. The hardware as well as the software should work properly for the machine to run. The complainant is not specific that the problem was either with the hardware or software. This is not a case of Res Ipso Loquitor. Merely because the service personnel of the second opposite party visited the complainant’s place we cannot draw a conclusion that the computer suffered from manufacturing defect. The service reports do not reveal any problem with the hardware. Under these circumstances it not possible to conclude that the computer suffered any Manufacturing defects. <br /> 9 However, the same cannot be said about the printer. There is a letter written by the second opposite party on 19.9.2006 stating that the HCL printer has been replaced with a HP printer. It is mentioned in the letter that the printer was replaced under a compromise. However, there is no evidence of any compromise. Even after this letter, the second opposite party’s service engineer has gone to the complainant’s house on 15.12.2006 to attend to the problem in the printer. Hence, it is clear that the problem in the printer remains unresolved.<br /> 10 We have already concluded that there is no manufacturing defect in the system and the problem is only with the printer. The Complainant has also alleged that the printer was replaced by the 2nd Opposite party without his permission. It is obvious that such replacement was done only because the printer suffered from a manufacturing defect. The 2nd Opposite party in all fairness should have replaced it with a HCL printer. Since, this was not done, we answer point no.I partly in the affirmative.<br /> 11 POINT NO.II:- The Complainant has made a bald allegation that the 2nd Opposite party did not provide the service properly. It is seen from the service reports that the 2nd Opposite party has attended to the Complaints as and when the Complainant called them. There is not even one instance of the Complainant’s Complaint about the computer remaining un-redressed. Hence, the allegation is unsubstantiated and therefore, we answer point no.II in the negative.<br /> 12 In the legal notice dated 30.08.2006 issued to both the Opposite parties there is a mention that the computer was taken by the 2nd Opposite party for repairs on 10.08.2006 and was delivered back to the Complainant under pressure. We find no service report corresponding to that date. The Complainant has also not produced the extended warranty which he says was taken by him by paying Rs.3,857/-. In any case, the Opposite parties have not disputed this.<br /> 13 The Complainant’s main grouse as can be gathered from the Complaint and the legal notices is that the 2nd Opposite party ought to have given a HCL printer in place of the HCL printer taken by him. The 2nd Opposite party in his letter dated 19.09.2006 has clearly admitted that the HCL printer was replaced with a HP printer. Under these circumstances, the Complainant is entitled to a new HCL printer. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties are directed to provide the Complainant a new HCL Lexmark 505 series printer wherein 2 months from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay him Rs.10,000/- as damages. On delivering the said printer the Opposite parties shall be at liberty to take the HP printer provided by them. <br /> 3. The Opposite parties are directed to pay the Complaint cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />