The averments in the complaint are as follows. The complainant had purchased a computer component namely, Mother Board Intel 845 GVSR having Serial No.BQSR 4222404 from the Ist respondent on 19.7.2004. When the computer stopped working due to the malfunctioning of the motherboard, the complainant approached the first respondent on 17.10.2006 to get the component repaired or replaced, since the same is having a warranty of three years and it is within the said period. Then at the request of the first respondent the complainant entrusted the component with the 2^nd respondent who has their office in the same building wherein the first respondent has their office. The complainant paid Rs.100/- as per the requirement of the 2^nd respondent to send the component to the manufacturer. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant and in spite of repeated promises committed by the respondents to replace the motherboard, the respondents failed and neglected to replace the same with a new component or repair the same. So the complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice and they received the notices and replied which contains their incapacity to repair or replace. The respondents are jointly liable to get the component repaired or replace the same with a new one as claimed by the complainant, which they have not done so far. The non-performance of their duty amounts to deficiency of service towards the complainant. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The averments in the counter are as follows. It is true that petitioner had purchased a Motherboard Intel 845 GVSR Serial No. BQSR 4222404 on 19.7.04 from the first respondent. It is also true that petitioner presented the same for curing the defect with the 2^nd respondent on 17.10.08. But while accepting the same 2^nd respondent had made clear to petitioner that the shop warrantee offered by first respondent for the Motherboard is only one year and the three year warrantee is offered by the Intel Company and that petitioner can approach the company on his own and also that the defect cannot be cured by these respondents. But petitioner insisted that the motherboard may be sent to the company through respondents and only upon petitioner’s compulsion 2^nd respondent had received the motherboard and demanded Rs.100/- as the expenses for sending the motherboard to the company. After inspecting the same the company had informed the respondents that track of the motherboard has been burnt off and the motherboard itself has to be replaced. The warrantee offered to the customer is not replacement warrantee but only to cure the defects. The burning of the track of the motherboard can be due to voltage fluctuations, lightning or by overheat for which respondents cannot take responsibility. Respondent can neither cure the defect of the motherboard nor get it replaced since the defect occurred does not come under the terms and conditions of warrantee. This was informed to petitioner via telephone but petitioner neither contacted respondents nor took away the motherboard. These respondents had replied to the lawyer notice stating that the petitioner should approach the company to get the motherboard replaced since the warranty period covered by these respondents was only for one year and the warranty of three year was offered by the Intel Company. The warranty offered is for curing defects and not of replacement. Petitioner had not approached these respondents with any complaints within the stipulated warranty time offered by the respondents. Even after the reply notice the complainant has not taken steps to approach the company to get the product replaced but preferred to file this complaint. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists Exts. P1 to P7 and Ext. R1. 

 

            5. Point No.1: The definite case of complainant is that he had purchased a computer component viz. Motherboard Intel 845 GVSR having Serial No. BQSR 4222404 from the first respondent on 19.7.04. When the computer stopped working due to the malfunctioning of the motherboard he had approached the first respondent on 17.10.06 to get it repaired or replaced since it has three years warranty. At the request of first respondent the complainant entrusted the product with second respondent and paid Rs.100/- as per the requirement of the second respondent to send it to manufacturer. In spite of repeated requests it was not repaired and not replaced. So he was caused to send lawyer notice. The respondents filed counter and stated that the shop warrantee offered by the first respondent for the motherboard is only one year and the three year warrantee is offered by the Intel Company and the complainant can approach the company on his own. They also contend that the motherboard has been burnt off and the motherboard itself is to be replaced and the defect cannot be cured by these respondents. The warrantee offered to the customer is not replacement and only to cure the defects. 

 

            6. These are the strange contentions raised by the dealer and service centre. The first respondent who is the dealer accepted Rs.13,675/- towards the cost of equipment and after the purchase these persons are disclosing their another face to the poor customers, This is another kind of unfair trade practice and another kind of exploitation. The dealers who are face of the manufacturers are having primary responsibility. In the present case the defects are admitted by the respondents. But they tried to wash off their hands from the responsibility by simply saying that the defects cannot be cured by them. The mistake to the component had found out by the respondents and the remedy is also suggested by them is replacement only. At the same time they stated that it is the duty of Intel Company since the respondents have responsible for only one year. They also advised the complainant to approach the Intel Company to get the product replaced. This is another kind of unfair trade practice committed by the respondents. The product is purchased from first respondent and the amount is received by the first respondent. Even if there is only one-year warranty for this, it is their duty to provide better quality products to the customers. If any complaint arises it is their bounden duty to rectify it. But they are trying to escape by blaming the complainant. According to them the complainant has not taken any steps to make available the products to the Intel Company. It is not the duty of complainant to take the products to the Company. The dealer who is the face of manufacturer has the every right to make available the complainant better goods. Here the respondents themselves admitted the defects, but they simply evading from the responsibility by stating the warranty conditions. It is another kind of exploitation done by the respondents. The complainant has to intimate the defects to the dealer and it is the duty to cure or replace. The complainant need not approach the company to replacement of the product. It is to be the dealings of the dealer and manufacturer. By imposing strange conditions the respondents and the company has harassed the complainant unnecessarily. There is serious service deficiency on the part of respondents and also committed grave unfair trade practice.

 

            7. Point No.2: The relief sought by the complainant is either to repair or replace the product. The respondents itself admitted that the defects are not curable and replacement is the only remedy. So the complainant is entitled to replacement of the product with a new one. In the complaint it is averred that since the complainant did not get the component repaired in time he had to depend on others for his computer job and had to spend a lot. There is no denial of these aspects in the version of respondents. So the complainant deserves a reasonable compensation from the respondents. 

 

            8. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to replace the motherboard of the type stated in the complaint with a new one or refund Rs.3275/- (Rupee three thousand two hundred and seventy five only) to the complainant within one month with a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only).