M/s.HCL Infosys Ltd., the petitioners herein, were opposite parties No.2 and 3 before the District Forum.

          Complainant/Respondent No.1 had purchased HCL 2.66 GH3 (63 bit) computer, 256 MB, 80 GBSATA, 17 inch DVD RW, TV tuner card, Web Camera, HP Printer, 5 speaker system, Cordless mouse and keyboard, 256 MB pen drive, 4 feet table with drawer for Rs.49,000/- vide bill No.676 dated 1.10.2005 from M/s.Chip Set Computers (Respondent No.2 herein and referred to as ‘the dealer’ hereinafter), which was manufactured by the petitioner.  A sum of Rs.838/- was paid as additional charges for fitting 6-channel sound card and 17 inch antiglare glass.  According to the complainant, the equipment supplied to him was defective and did not work from the date of the installation.  The sound system was also not working.  The executive of the dealer came to the complainant on 26.9.2006 and removed the CPU to rectify the defects.  It was averred that so far the CPU was not returned.  Complainant sent Legal Notice which was of no use.  Thus, being aggrieved, complaint was filed before the District Forum.

          Petitioner did not appear in spite of service.  Petitioner was directed to be proceeded ex parte.  The dealer put in appearance and filed its written statement.  District Forum came to the conclusion that the defect was only in the CPU and not in any other part.  That the dealer had failed to return the CPU which was handed over to it by the complainant and accordingly allowed the complaint in part and directed the dealer as well as the petitioner to jointly and severally pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as costs.  The dealer as well as the petitioner accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal before the State Commission. 

The complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by the impugned order.  State Commission agreed with the submission made by the counsel for the complainant that without the CPU, the complainant could not use the system at all.  Another finding recorded by the State Commission is that the petitioner as well as the dealer, in spite of Notice issued to them by the Local Commissioner, did not appear before him because of which, the Local Commissioner could not examine the system in the absence of the CPU.  Relying upon the cash bill and the warranty card produced by the complainant, the State Commission directed the petitioner as well as the dealer to pay Rs.50,238/- jointly and severally being the price of the computer and the peripherals purchased from the dealer.  Rs.20,000/- were awarded by way of costs.  The amount was directed to be paid within 2 months failing which the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of passing of the order. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had never been served.  Except for stating that the petitioner did not receive any Notice from the Forum, the petitioners have not produced any evidence in support of this submission.  No affidavit in support of the contention that the petitioners were not served has been filed.  District Forum has clearly stated in its order that the petitioners did not appear in spite of service.  In the absence of any defence raised by the petitioners, fora below have rightly come to the conclusion that the CPU supplied to the complainant was defective.  We agree with the finding recorded by the State Commission that in the absence of the CPU, the complainant could not use the system at all. 

Another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not be mad liable to pay for certain goods which were not manufactured by it.  The complainant had purchased the goods from the dealer.  Petitioners did not appear before the District Forum and file the written statement in spite of service.  In the absence of any rebuttal or evidence to the effect that the petitioner had not manufactured some of the goods, it is not possible for us at this stage to come to the conclusion that some of the goods had not been manufactured by the petitioner.  The cash memo at Exhibit A-1 shows that the complainant had paid a total consideration of Rs.49,400/- for the following goods purchased from the dealer :

“HCL 2.66 GH3 (63 bit) computer, 256 MB, 80 GBSATA, 17 inch DVD RW, TV tuner card, Web Camera, HP Printer, 5 speaker system, Cordless mouse and keyboard, 256 MB pen drive, 4 feet table with drawer.”

It would be seen that most of the goods purchased by the complainant were peripherals or adjunctive to the use of the computer.  It is not possible at this stage to state as to which of the goods purchased by the complainant were not manufactured by the petitioner.

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in either of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners.  Dismissed.