State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The R.L. Marketing And Services, ... vs Mr.Pln Sastry S/O P.V.S.Sastry Uppal ... on 25 March, 2010
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 1720 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.187 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD Between The R.L. Marketing and Services, Rep. by its proprietor/Manager Sri K.P.Rao Dattus Mansion, 140, 10-3-78/15, Teachers Colony Beside Kenedy Vidya Bhavan High School East Marredpally, Secunderabad Appellant/opposite party A N D Mr.PLN Sastry S/o P.V.S.Sastry Age 67 years Occ:Retd. Employee R/o H.No.8-35/6, New Hem Ngr Uppal Hyderabad Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant Sri C.Rajaiah & G.Pavana Murthy Counsel for the Respondent Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
& SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) *** The opposite party is the appellant.
The appeal is challenge to the order passed by the District forum-II, Hyderabad in C.C.No.187 of 2007.
Briefly stated the facts of the case as represented by the complainant is that he gave his computer to the opposite party to upgrade the computer and paid a sum of Rs.14,800/-. On 3.1.2006, the opposite party delivered the computer system after upgrading the same and gave warranty ranging from one year to five years on the different parts of the system. Since the date of delivery of the system, it giving trouble and the same was complained to the opposite party on several occasions. On 14.9.2006 an employee of the opposite party re-installed Nero and McAfee but could not solve the problem. The complainant wrote a letter dated 25.11.2006 in response to which one Mr.Shafi from the office of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant on 30.11.2006 to rectify the defects but could not succeeded. On 2.12.2006 two technicians from the opposite party came to the house of the complainant and took away the defective Combo Drive and returned the same stating that they have rectified the problem. Due to the defect of the system about 50 CDs were damaged. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.12.2006 to the opposite party. As there was no response to the legal notice the complainant filed the complaint and sought direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.14,800/-, Rs.500/- towards CDs and Rs.7000/- towards compensation.
The opposite party resisted the claim contending that as per the instructions from the complainant the system was upgraded in January 2006 by installing AMD 2500 processor, Mother Board, 80 GB Seagate Hard Disk, LG Combo Drive, 1.44 floppy drive etc against receipt of a consideration of Rs.14,800/- and warranty was extended from one year to 5 years by the manufacturers. The complainant on 25.11.2006 intimated about malfunctioning of P.C. due to installation of Nero and McAfee by the opposite party. The technicians of the opposite party attended to the defects pointed out by the complainant. It is not the parts which were found to be defective but the system and the software loaded in it are not sufficient enough to take care of multimedia requirements of the complainants children who are said to be musicians and artists.
The opposite party is duty bound to attend and rectify the defects brought to their notice during the warranty period free of cost. The system being complex and delicate much depends on its users. There is no deficiency in service on its part.
The complainant has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.
On behalf of the opposite party its proprietor Mr.K.P.Rao, filed his affidavit and no documents were marked.
The District forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.14,800/- to the complainant and compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with costs of Rs1,000/-.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District forum the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that it is not the parts which were found to be defective but the system and the software loaded in it are not sufficient enough to take care of multimedia requirements of the complainants children who are musicians and artists. There has been no problem with the hardware but it was with the software as the complainant continued to use pirated software of Nero and McAfee.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from factual or legal infirmity?
The respondent got upgraded his computer system by the appellant on 3.1.2006. The appellant gave warranty on the upgraded version of the system ranging from one year to five years on the different parts of the system. The respondent has contended that the upgraded version of the system begun to give trouble from the date of installation. The appellant had submitted that 10 months after the system was upgraded, the respondent complained of its malfunctioning on the ground that the Nero and MacAfee installed in the system started giving the problems such as failure of video burning on 70% of its completion, the replay was sluggish once the video burning is successful and at times the system doesnt start at all. It is a well known fact that the nero is the software used for burning CDs and the MacAfee is an antivirus software. According to the appellant if these packages are corrupted with virus the system would pose problems as complained of by the respondent. It is the version of the appellant that the respondent used pirated software and it is the suspicion of the appellant that the respondent had used a cheap quality CDs available in the market.
Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the quality of the CDs used by the respondents is inferior in nature is concerned, we do not see any merit in the contention as there is no evidence on record. In regard to the contention of the appellant that the respondent used pirated software, the respondent has not denied this fact and a perusal of the contents of notice got issued by the respondent that it becomes clear that there is no denial of the fact that and there is an admission supporting the version of the appellant that the respondents children had been using the computer for the purpose of recording the music. According to the appellant if the system is used for multimedia purpose such as recording the music, automatically it gets slow down in performance.
Admittedly, the respondent has sent a mail on 25.11.2006 complaining of the problems, failure of video burning on 70% of completion of burning, the replay was sluggish once the video burning is successful and at times the system doesnt start at all. The respondent had sent a mail again on 11.12.2006 reiterating the problems that were mentioned in the earlier mail and ultimately the same problems have been found mentioned in the notice dated 16.12.2006 that was got issued on behalf of the respondent. A close look at the contents of the mails and notice would make it abundantly clear that the components of the upgraded version of the system had posed certain problems and the appellant admitted that it had attended to the defects pointed out by the respondent. There is no evidence to the effect that the appellant had attended to the defects as complained of by the respondent. However in the light of admission of the respondent as to the technicians of the appellant attending to the problems complained of, the fact of repair of the upgraded version of the system is held established. At the same time it cannot be brushed away that the functioning of the PC depends not only on CPU but also the peripherals and various devices both external and internal to it, as pointed out by the appellant that it all lies with the users depth of knowledge about the software files and functioning of external devices attached to the PC.
The appellant expressed its readiness to attend to the problems that would crop up in the use of system free of cost during the warranty period given by the manufacturers of respective parts supplied and installed in the PC by them and it has also expressed its willingness to train the children of the respondent who are using the system in respect of which the defects were pointed out by the respondent. Taking into consideration of all the circumstances of the case we are inclined to hold the respondent entitled to the service free of costs in attending to any defect in respect of the components that were installed by the appellant for a period of one year months from the date of this order. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the relief of compensation and costs awarded by the Distinct Forum and by substituting the same with a direction for free service of the system of the complainant.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad by directing the appellant to attend free of cost to the problems that would crop up in the components installed by it for a period of one year from the date of this order. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.25.03.2010 KMK*