BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 45/2012 Filed on 04.02.2012
Dated: 16.08.2013
Complainant:
Santhoshkumar. M, S.K. Bhavan, Mannamkonam P.O, Ottasekharamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. J.R. Sanudas)
Opposite parties:
1. The Managing Director, HCL Infosystems Ltd., Mid Land Arrena, 4/84, 84-A, 84-B, Marottichuvadu Junction, Edapal, Kochi.
2. The Branch Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd., Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Binu Sukumaran)
3. M/s P.N. Panicker Foundation of India, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)
This C.C having been taken as heard on 07.08.2013, the Forum on 16.08.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant availed a scheme of providing with computer and arranging internet facility of M/s BSNL promoted by the 1st opposite party, the MD, HCL Infosystems Ltd., Kochi and the 3rd opposite party, M/s P.N. Panicker Foundation of India, Thiruvananthapuram on subsidised rate on payment of Rs. 4,250/- to 1st opposite party on 14.06.2010, that the balance is to be paid by monthly installments of Rs. 300/- which will be charged along with the internet charges in the telephone by M/s BSNL, that 1st opposite party had issued their invoice for Rs. 27,012/- and subsequently installed the computer at the residence of the complainant by the staff of the 2nd opposite party, the Branch Manager, HCL Infosystems Ltd., that from the date of installation of the computer, it did not function properly, that opposite party assured that the defects will be rectified on the next day itself, that nothing was done by the opposite party, that thereafter 2nd opposite party asked the complainant to hand over the CPU to them, that complainant handed over the same to 2nd opposite party on 18.08.2010, that nothing was done by the 2nd opposite party despite the regular contacts of the complainant, but complainant was instructed to take all the components of the computer to the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of replacing the same with a new one, that the complainant handed over the same to 2nd opposite party on 14.12.2010, that 2nd opposite party never supplied a new computer to the complainant, while BSNL started billing the complainant with an amount of Rs. 300/- per months towards cost of the computer in the telephone bill. No action taken by 1st opposite party to stop the billing, that complainant caused to send lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties on 28.10.2011 demanding for the necessary action on their part so as to refund the amount of Rs. 4,250/- and to do the needful with M/s BSNL to cancel the bills already raised and not to raise further bill against the complainant, that opposite parties neither replied nor done anything so as to redress the grievance of the complainant due to their wilful negligence and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties 1 & 2, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version contending interalia that complainant does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite parties, that the complainant never approached opposite parties 1 & 2 with any grievance with respect to the computer in question, that opposite parties 1 & 2 were ready and willing to perform their part of obligation, that opposite parties denied that the computer in question after the date of installation did not function properly, that there was no negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2.
3rd opposite party filed version contending that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and 3rd opposite party. The said scheme is promoting by the Government of India in collaboration with HCL and BSNL, providing computer with internet facility at subsidized rate, that 3rd opposite party is only a facilitating agency for identifying the prospective customer to implement the programme of the government and foundations, cherishing vision of ‘computers for all’ as part of IT Literacy programme, that 3rd opposite party is not a necessary party in this dispute and there is no deficiency in service from the 3rd opposite party.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P10. In rebuttal, 3rd opposite party has filed proof affidavit. Opposite parties have not filed any documents.
Points (i) & (ii):- It has been the case of the complainant that, complainant availed a scheme of providing with computer and arranging internet facility of M/s BSNL promoted jointly by 1st opposite party and 3rd opposite party on subsidized rate on payment of Rs. 4,250/- to 1st opposite party. Ext. P1 series are the copies of the receipts of DDs dated 14.06.2010 for Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 2,250/- issued by the Indian Bank. Ext. P2 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 03.08.2010 issued by the 1st opposite party for Rs. 27,012/- in the name of the complainant. Ext. P3 is the copy of the customer call cum service slip dated 18.08.2010. The nature of problem stated in the said slip is ‘machine not powering’. It is seen stated in Ext. P3 that machine received from the customer and 3 CD received. Ext. P4 is the copy of the customer call cum service slip dated 14.12.2010, wherein the nature of problem is mentioned as ‘machine not working’. LCD Monitor, cable, modem, cable machine, keyboard, mouse and mouse pad etc. are seen received from the customer. Ext. P5 is the copy of the bill dated 06.02.2011 for Rs. 138.98 issued by the BSNL to the complainant towards monthly charges and usage charges. Ext. P6 is the copy of the receipt dated 17.02.2011 issued by the BSNL to complainant. Ext. P7 series are copies of two bills dated 06.01.2012 issued by BSNL to the complainant. Ext. P8 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 28.10.2011 issued by the complainant to 1st opposite party. Ext. P9 is the copy of postal receipts. Ext. P10 series are copies of the acknowledgement cards. It has been contended by the complainant that 1st opposite party installed the computer at complainant’s residence and from the date of its installation, it developed troubles, not functioned properly, that as requested by the 1st opposite party complainant handed over the CPU to the 2nd opposite party on 18.08.2010. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties have done nothing despite regular contacts, that at last, complainant was instructed to take all the components of the computer to 2nd opposite party for the purpose of replacement and accordingly complainant handed over the same to the 2nd opposite party on 14.12.2010, that till date no computer was supplied to the complainant by the opposite party, despite repeated and regular contacts to opposite parties over phone and in person. According to complainant, since the date of installation of the computer, M/s BSNL has started billing the complainant with an amount of Rs. 300/- per month towards costs of the components in the telephone bill. Opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed version, but to substantiate the averments in the version, opposite parties 1 & 2 have not filed proof affidavit nor have opposite parties 1 & 2 cross examined the complainant. 3rd opposite party has filed affidavit to corroborate their stand in the version. Thereby the affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination against opposite parties 1 & 2 remains uncontroverted. 3rd opposite party has taken the stand that they are only a facilitating agency for identifying the prospective customer to implement the programme of the government and 3rd opposite party’s cherishing vision of “computers for all” as part of IT literacy programme. It has also been contended by 3rd opposite party that 3rd opposite party is not liable for any dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 as 3rd opposite party has neither received any money from the complainant nor any profit from this activity and as such there is no consumer relation between 3rd opposite party and the complainant and as such there is no deficiency from them. It should be noted that as per Ext. P1 series, complainant had remitted Rs. 4,250/- to 1st opposite party on 14.06.2010, thereby complainant had availed the said scheme. Evidently by Ext. P3 opposite parties 1 & 2 had received machine from the customer on 18.08.2010 and by Ext. P4 opposite parties 1 & 2 had taken other parts of the components such as LCD monitor, cable, modem, cable machine accessories, keyboard, mouse and mouse pad from the customer on 14.12.2010. After accepting the computer and its components from the complainant, opposite parties 1 & 2 had not taken any action till filing of the complaint nor had opposite parties 1 & 2 replaced the defective computer with a defect free new one. Still the computer in question is with opposite parties 1 & 2. As such complainant is not in a position to follow the procedure provided under Sec. 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The acts of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in not rectifying the defects of the computer or in not replacing the defective computer with a defect free new one of the similar model to complainant would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Any order to opposite parties to return the said computer repaired or to supply a new computer to complainant after a lapse of more than two years would never meet equity and ends of justice nor would it serve the purpose of the complainant’s purchase. In view of the above, we deem that justice will be well met if 1st opposite party is directed to refund the complainant Rs. 4,250/- with 9% interest from 14.06.2010 along with Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed. 1st opposite party shall refund the complainant Rs. 4,250/- with 9% interest per annum from 14.06.2010 along with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as cost. 1st opposite party shall issue direction to M/s BSNL, Ottasekharamangalam office to cancel the bill already issued to the complainant and not to raise any further bill towards the cost of the computer. 1st opposite party shall comply the above order within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of August 2013.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 45/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - M. Santhosh Kumar
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 series- Copies of receipts of DDs dated 14.06.2010.
P2 - Copy of retail invoice dated 03.08.2010 issued by 1st opposite
party for Rs. 27,012/-.
P3 - Copy of customer call cum service slip dated 18.08.2010.
P4 - Copy of customer call cum service slip dated 14.12.2010.
P5 - Copy of account summary for the account number
9025571401 issued by BSNL.
P6 - Copy of receipt dated 17.02.2011 for Rs. 750/-.
P7 series- Copy of bill No.157371456 dated 06.01.2012 issued by
BSNL.
P7(a) - Copy of bill No.157371456 dated 06.01.2012 issued by
BSNL.
P8 - Copy of advocate notice dated 28.10.2011 issued to 1st OP
P9 - Copy of postal receipt
P10 - Copy of acknowledgement card
P10(a)- Copy of acknowledgement card.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
