State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ace Systems, 32, Chinnammal Street, ... vs S.Ramanathan, Advocate, 132, Thadagam ... on 12 March, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present: Thiru J. Jayaram, M.A., M.L. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER F.A. 409 / 2011 (Against Order in C.C.404/2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) Dated this the 12th day of MARCH, 2013 ACE Systems, ] 32, Chinnammal Street, ] Appellant / Opposite Party K.K. Pudur, ] Coimbatore 38 ] Vs. S. Ramanathan, ] Advocate, ] 1324, Thadagam Road, ] Respondent / Complainant R.S. Puram, ] Coimbatore 641 002 ] This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 15.02.2013 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party:
M/s L.P. Shanmugasundram Counsel for Respondent/Complainant: Mr. S. Balamurugan.
J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.404/2009, dated 25-10-2010, allowing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is an Advocate at Coimbatore. He had a personal Computer which developed problems in 2007 and on his call the Service Engineer of the opposite party took the computer to their office on 4-9-2007 which was attended to by the opposite party and on 7-9-2007 they collected service charges of Rs.250/-, and as the service was not satisfactory, some other representative of the opposite party collected the Mother Board on 20-9-2007 promising to repair it properly and on 26-9-2007, the same person delivered the Mother Board and attended to the PC stating that the PC was working properly; but soon the screen went black and the system could not be started again. He approached another agency, who informed him that the computer was tampered, damaging intricate items inside the PC. On 12-10-2007, he had to spend a sum of Rs.8105/- for setting right the P.C. He lost all the data pertaining to his official work and he had to redo everything for a week and he estimated the loss at Rs.1,000/- per day. Hence the complaint against the opposite party for the deficiency in service on their part praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards cost of replacing of parts and towards data loss and mental agony, etc. and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
3. According to the 2nd opposite party, the computer is a old one and the Windows Operating System in use was pirated copy and the problem was attended by the technician and the system continuously got restarted and the computer was taken for service to the office on 4-9-2007 and upon inspection it was found that the Mother Board Capacitor had failed and the system was working properly and it was delivered to the complainant. Everything went well with the computer for 13 days and on 20-9-2007 at the request of the complainant, their technician attended to the problem and found that the Mother Board did not work properly and since the complainant was using pirated Windows Operating System, the loss of files or the full system crash was inevitable and on 26-9-2007 on receiving a call from the complainant, the staff over written the operating system in the computer and the system worked well. .
4. The opposite party wanted back the standby Mother Board provided by them and because of this there was some rift giving rise to complaint. There is no deficiency on their part.
5. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint and passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of computer parts replaced and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on their part and to pay a costs of Rs.2,000/-.
6. The appellant / opposite party would contend that they did not tamper with the intricate system of the computer and the problem was due to the use of pirated Windows Operating System and they did not cause any damage to the system and the repairs were properly attended to on all the occasions. Ex-A1 which is the service call report issued by the opposite party shows that the opposite party took the computer to their office on 4-9-2007 for restarting the system and afterwards on 7-9-2007 the repair was on the same problem and collected charges of Rs.250/- from the complainant and Ex.A3 shows that the computer again developed the same problem within 13 days and at the request of the complainant the opposite party provided a standby computer to the complainant and on 26-9-2007 they returned the computer to the complainant stating that that the Windows Operating System files were over written and the system was working properly. From Ex.A5 which is the service bill it is seen that the computer developed serious problems and was set right at a cost of Rs.8,105/-. Considering all these, we hold that the opposite party did not render proper service to the complainants computer, as a result of which, the computer had to be repaired again and again amounting to deficiency in service on their part.
7. There is no evidence on record to substantiate that the complainant used pirated Windows Operating System as contended by the appellant / opposite party. The appellant / opposite party has cited a decision of the Honble National Commission:
i) Classic System v. Smt. Manju Khanna & Ors.
2004-Indlaw NCDRC 152;
2005 (1) CPJ 375
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not rendering proper service to the complainant and that there is no merit in the appeal.
9. The District Forum has allowed the petition holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has passed an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of replacement of parts, and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony, etc and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the compensation of Rs.5,000/- is unwarranted.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the order to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony etc and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.
S. SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER