GUPTA COMPUTERS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR Vs. WILLIAM D. HOOPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appellants are the unsuccessful opposite parties 1 and 2 in C.C. 29/2007 before the District Forum, Ananthapur, in which, they were directed to replace with new Intel Computer in the place of demonstration model and also new Intel C.D. Writer in the place of Orchid Innovations C.D. Writer and to pay cost of Laptop Power Cord for Rs.50/-, by refunding the excess collection of Rs.505/- and Rs.501/- besides refunding of Rs.250/- collected towards installation charges etc. in total, 2,776/- with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant had approached first opposite party on 02.02.2006 to purchase one Intel computer and CD writer. The first opposite party is the dealer and the second opposite party is the supplier of Intel computer. The first opposite party informed that installation charges for software would not be collected. Both opposite parties 1 and 2 falsely represented that Window XP would operate properly with 64 MB RAM. Believing their version, the complainant purchased Intel computer from first opposite party on 02.02.2006 for Rs.7,500/- vide cash bill no. 4142 with one year warranty. The C. D. Writer was also purchased on the same day from OP. 1 for Rs.2,500/- vide cash bill no. 4143 with one year warranty. Both the goods were delivered on 24.02.2006. The actual price of the Intel computer was Rs. 6,995/- as per the advertisement of the News paper The Hindu. So also, the cost of the C D. writer was also Rs.1,999/-, but, in stead of it, they collected Rs.7,500/- for Intel computer and Rs.2,500/- for C. D. writer by collecting excess amount of Rs.505/- and Rs.501/- respectively. Besides it, Rs.250/- was collected towards installation charges. The opposite parties failed to install the software programme as assured by them and sold demonstration model computer instead of new Intel computer. Further the opposite party supplied Orchid Innovations Brand C. D. writer instead of Intel Brand C.D. writer. So also, Owners manual or adapter were not given. Thus, the first opposite party had committed deficiency in service. On 02.02.2006, the complainant handed over his Laptop to first opposite party for conducting repairs. But the first opposite party returned the same with inferior quality of power cord on 11.03.2006 without effecting repairs. The first opposite party used Laptop computer to force sale of Intel computer and avoided to return Laptop computer to the complainant. The act or omission on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

(3.) The first opposite party while admitting the purchase of the Intel computer and C. D. writer by the complainant on 02.02.2006 has denied the other allegations. The first opposite party had collected 4% VAT Tax, transport and other miscellaneous charges which were explained to the complainant and on satisfaction the complainant purchased the same. No extra charges were collected as alleged. The complainant had not purchased C. D. writer as per the news item and he purchased another company brand, viz. Orchid Innovations. The warranty period for the items was from 02.02.2006 and not from 24.02.2006. the dates are manipulated. There is no deficiency in service to make him liable for the claim. During the enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with Ex. A1 to A-28 and Ex.B-1 and B-2 were filed by Opposite parties.