At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.V. JOSE
For the Appellant: K. Dhananjayan, Advocate. For the Respondent :---------
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President
This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party in CC/143/2010 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant for supplying a defective computer.
The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
The opposite party is M/s. Scholar Digital System, Palakkad engaged in sales and services of consumer durables linked to computer peripherals and gadgets. On 8th November, 2008 the opposite party supplied a PC System with complete accessories. Towards its consideration the then existing and working PC system of complainant was handed over and also Rs. 8,500/- was paid to opposite party. After installation of the PC system there was interruption and intermittent stoppage of work owing to the failure of system. Though the opposite party gave a warranty of 2 years, after one year they did not respond. Therefore complainant had to spend Rs. 9,000/- for curing the defect by engaging another technician. Therefore the complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and cost.
The opposite party in its version contended thus:
The opposite party never supplied a PC System with complete accessories on 8th November, 2008. The opposite party has supplied only a computer CPU containing the accessories on 17th November, 2008 for Rs. 12,455/-. But complainant paid only Rs. 8,500/-. In spite of repeated requests the complainant did not pay the balance amount. Free services were done on 26/11/2008 and on 10/12/2008. On complainant's request the technician of opposite party visited the house of complainant 16/12/2009. The opposite party has installed a system which he had brought from Goa on 8/11/2008. The new CPU was installed on 17/11/2008. The difficulties or inconvenience caused to the complaint are only because of the defects prevailing in his old system. Therefore the complaint has to be dismissed.
The complainant and opposite party have filed proof affidavits before the Forum. Ext.A1 to Ext.A12 were marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party produced Ext.B1 to B5. Ext.C1 was also marked. On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
Heard the counsel for the appellant. Respondent/complainant remained absent though he was served with the notice.
The counsel for appellant/opposite party argued that appellant supplied only some parts of the computer the defects of which he cannot be made liable.
The following points arise for consideration.
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of appellant/opposite party?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
The specific case of the complainant is that on 8/11/2008 opposite party supplied a new computer which is defective. The appellant/opposite party contented that he never supplied a computer to complainant, but supplied only some of its parts defects of which he is not liable and that the manufacturers of these parts are liable for the said defects.
For several reasons I am inclined to confirm the findings of the Forum that there is deficiency of service on the part part of the appellant. The contention of appellant that he never supplied a computer on 8/11/2008 appears to be not true. Ext.A1 is the installation receipt issued by opposite party dated 8/11/2008 wherein it is stated 'type of call New PC installing', service rendered working properly. It is clear from the above that opposite party installed the system on 8/11/2008. The name of the technician was shown therein as Sumesh.P. The counsel for appellant argued that it was a mistake on the part of concerned technician. But the said technician was not examined as a witness to prove the above aspect. That being so it has to be held that a new PC system was installed by the opposite party with the complainant on 8.11.2008.
Ext.A2 dated 17/11/2008, Ext.A3 dated 26/11/2008, Ext.A5 dated 10/12/2008 and Ext.A6 dated Nil shows that the system developed problems and the technician of opposite party repaired the same. Ext.A6 shows that complainant paid Rs.500/- as service charge. The system was installed on 8/11/2008 and developed problems on 17/11/2008 itself. Subsequently complainant has got it repaired by another technician from M/s Netline Systems and has to spent Rs.9,000 as evidenced by Ext.A11 series. It is clear from the above that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party.
In an attempt to prove that opposite party did not supply new PC system to complainant, opposite party produced Ext.B1 to B5 and Caused production of Ext.C1. Ext.B1 is the original cash bill dated 17/11/2008. It shows that opposite party has sold some parts of computer to complainant for Rs. 12,455/-. Ext.B2 is office copy of Delivery Chalan. Ext.C1 is the copy of monthly return submitted by opposite party to Commercial Taxes Department in which the number and details of Ext.B1 bill is shown. Ext.B5 is the office copies of service report. In Ext.B5 is service report No.757 dated 17/11/2008 issued to the complainant. But the entries in Ext.B2 and Ext.B5 do not tally. In Ext.B1 dated 8/11/2008 it is seen that all these parts were installed in 8/11/2008 itself for which Appellant/opposite party has no explanation to offer. Under these circumstances the Forum is perfectly justified in rejecting Ext.B1 to Ex
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t.B5 and Ext.C1 and accepting Ext.A1 to Ext.A9 and coming to the conclusion that opposite party has installed a new PC System to the complainant on 8/11/2008 itself. For all these reasons I confirm the findings of the Forum that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,000/- and a cost of Rs.1,000/-, Ext.A11 series shows that complainant had to spent Rs. 6,180/-to repair his computer. Therefore I find no ground to interfere with the said findings of the Forum. In this result, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.