M.SATYA PRABHAKARA RAO Vs. GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES REPRESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.430/2009 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant gave to the opp.party A.M.D. Mother Board of his personal computer-Compaq Company vide Model no.AM 37 L, Serial No.KAL 3213964 for doing some repairs. The opposite party after effecting repairs collected a sum of Rs.470/- and gave a receipt dt. 21.4.09 certifying that Repair Status OK. The complainant submits that even after repair his system was not booting and there was no power supply at all. On 22.4.2009 the complainant reported the same to the opp.party over phone who advised him to bring back the CPU for check up and he accordingly handed over the entire unit of CPU to the opposite party on 24.4.2009. On 25.4.2009 the opposite party sent a message that the CPU was not repaired and instructed the complainant to take back the unit stating that MB BGA bad SMPS, CDW to be repaired and to that effect the opposite party issued a certificate. The complainant submits that the opposite party negligently handled the CPU unit resulting in serious damage to the mother board and this amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to give the complainant a new mother board of the Compaq company with other necessary CPU components and if the said items of CPU are not available with same configuration direct the opp.party to fix a new Intel Mother Board-965 Model, Intel Processor, Model-Core 2 DUO, Ram D.D.R. 1 G.B., S.M.P.S., Hard Disk. etc. and other related CPU accessories without collecting any amount or in the alternative to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the cost of C.P.U. Unit along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.4.2009 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and to award costs of Rs.10,000/- and legal expenses. The opposite party inspite of receipt of notice remained absent .

(3.) The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal