Back
2004(3) CPR 665
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PONDICHERRY
V. Bakthavatsalu, President and M.A. Emile, Member
Electro Channel - Appellant
versus
Dr. Rajan Swain - Respondent
Appeal No. 14 of 2003 with appeal No. 13 of 2002
Decided on 10-6-2004
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Complainant purchased computer system which was alleged to be defective - Claim for refund of its price and compensation - District Forum accepting complaint directed opposite parties, dealer and manufacturer to refund the price Rs. 60,000/- with interest at 14% and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- Appeal- Defects were instead and brought to notice of appellants within 48 hours of installation of system - Service reports showed frequent repairs and replacement of parts in system which would indicate that system suffered from manufacturing defects - There were discrepancies in replacing of cards and supply of parts Fact that system was not functioning properly since date of supply, no needs to appoint an expert to test the system - Impugned order called for no interference except to reduce interest to 14% which infact complainant had prayed and directed to be paid from date of order of District Forum - Machine to be back to opposite parties. (Paras 9 to 12, 14, 18 and 23)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12 and 17 - Computer system purchased by Complainant was found having manufacturing defects Whether liability could be restricted to manufacturer in a consumer complaint? No - Both manufacturer and dealer were jointly and severally liable.(Paras 16 & 18)
Result: Appeals disposed of accordingly.
V. Bakthavatsalu, President - The Opposite Parties are the appellants herein.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with interest at 18% p.a from 20.3.2000 towards the refund of the price paid by, the complainant for the system delivered by the Opposite Party No.1 and for compensation of Rs. one lakh towards physical suffering and mental agony.
3. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of the product manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party, who is engaged in the manufacture and sale of computer system. The complainant placed an order dt. 20.3.2000 for a Zenith Model-2 MM computer system. The 1st Opposite Party . promised to deliver the system within a fortnight's time. But, even after a month’s time, they did not deliver the system. Therefore, the complainant sent a letter dt. 27.4.2000 asking the 1st Opposite Party to cancel the order and to refund the amount with interest. The 1st Opposite Party pleaded and requested the complainant to bear with the inconvenience caused. As such, the complainant did not press the cancellation of the order. The system was actually delivered on 3.5.2000. The system had major fault and discrepancies from the order placed by him and the same was brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Party on 4.5.2000 itself. Now, the age of the system is one year old and by now almost all the major parts of the system like mother board, display card, sound card, monitor, speaker and UPS has been changed as there was major defect in them. Despite this still the system is not functioning upto the mark and the hard disk had crashed resulting loss of valuable data stored. The 1st Opposite Party had taken the old machine of the complainant for Rs. 15,000/- and has paid only Rs. 5000/- and promised to pay the balance. But till dated he has not settled the amount. There was no response from the 1st Opposite Party for the letters sent by the complainant and the 1st Opposite Party was not in a position to rectify the faulting system. Hence, he has sent a notice dt. 21.3.2001 through All India Consumer Council, Pond cherry to the 2nd Opposite Party and it was followed by a notice dt. 5.4.2001 by his counsel to both Opposite Parties. 1st Opposite Party sent a letter dt. 20.4.2001 and in their letter, they gave three options regarding the settlement of the claim. As the above options are not acceptable, the complainant has approached the Forum. The complainant has also lost faith in the Opposite Parties. The complainant was compelled to buy new CD Rom drive on 12.7.2001. A careful perusal of the several letters sent by the complainant as well as the field survey report of the Service Engineer of 1st Opposite Party would clearly reveal that there has been a fundamental defect in the computer system delivered by the Opposite Party.
The Service Engineer is unable to rectify the defects and make the system operational one and there has been deficiency in service. The complainant being a doctor by profession has keen interest to update the latest information on medical science. But the Opposite Party disappointed him and the very purpose of purchase of the system has been defeated. This has resulted in heavy damage to the complainant both physically and mentally. The complainant has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. one lakh. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. till date of payment and compensation of Rs. one lakh.
4. The case of the 1st Opposite Party is as follows:
The allegation that the 1st Opposite Party promised to deliver the system within a fortnight's time from the date of placing order is not true. Normally any branded computer system would be delivered to a purchaser within three to four week's time. The complainant had placed a signed order in writing specifying “lntel-810e mother board with 100 Mhz. Bus” as a main part to be supplied to
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
