COMPAQ COMPUTERS (I) LTD. Vs. ASHLEY SHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first opposite party in O.P. No. 100 of 2001 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE case of the complainant was as follows : Impressed by the advertised features of the products of O.P. 1, the complainant purchased a computer from O.P. 2, dealer of O.P. 1 on 17.9.1999 for Rs. 90,610. O.P. 1 never stated in their advertisement that their computers were incompatible to other devices of other internationally renowed manufactures. The complainant had a warranty period of one year. The complainant on payment of a further sum of Rs. 8,500 had also taken the Carepaq scheme of O.P. 1 for extending and enhancing the said warranty for a further period of two years and the same was confirmed by O.P. 2 as per their letter dated 14.12.1999. However, the computer supplied to the complainant was substandard and full of very many defects from the very inception and installation thereof and contrary to the promises and advertisements made by the opposite parties. The said computer was replaced as also the DVD ROM which had to be sent to Bangalore for repairs and then replaced. The computer was not compatible to either HP CD writer or to any HP products and had endless other problems and defects, with the result the complainant could not use the computer most of the time and had to spend enormous amount in telephone calls to both the parties, conveyance charges, etc. to bring and take back the said computer from O.P. 2 after repairs. The complainant made telephone calls also to O.P. 1 at Delhi and spent huge amounts for the same. The complainant caused a notice to be issued to the opposite parties. There was no reply. The complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 90,610 being the invoice value of the computer, Rs. 19,934 being the interest on the said amount @ 24% per annum with further interest till date of final repayment, to pay a sum of Rs. 8,500 towards the carepaq scheme for extending the warranty, to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500 towards conveyance and telephone charges, Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, etc.

(3.) O .P. 1 filed a version disputing the claim of the complainant and stating further as follows: The problems stated by the complainant were solely due to the complainant installing an HP CD writer on the computer without using proper drivers for installation. The opposite party was not responsible for the computer not being compatible with HP CD writer or other HP products for the following reasons -O.P. 1 was not dealing with the CD writer. The complainant himself purchased the HP CD writer plus 8100i. He had himself installed the CD writer. When the system refused to boot; it was ascertained that the problem was due to a clash between the drivers of the DVD ROM and CD writer. Though this problem was reported by the complainant to HP the rectification was in fact done by O.P. 1's support functioning at Bangalore. The computer worked without any problem for more than 2 months, when on the request of the customer/complainant, DVD ROM was replaced. The complainant, thereafter, received an error message which was ascertained by O.P. 1 to be caused only because of the improper installation of HP CD writer. Still as a matter of gesture, this complaint was also attended to by O.P. 1. The complainant again represented that he was getting an error message when trying to record from the DVD ROM to the CD Writer. According to the complainant himself the computer worked well and the problem occurred only when attempts were made to record to the CD Writer. Thus the problem was only with HP CD Writer Driver and installation thereof. The problem arose only after the complainant installed the HP CD Writer through the software, Adapted Easy CD creator, which was again provided by HP. Subsequent analysis also proved that the root cause was the CD Writer Driver. The CD Writer was unable to copy from CD to CD but worked well while copying from the hard disk using the Adaptec Easy CD creator application supplied by HP. The engineer of O.P. 1 at the request of the complainant installed alternative software "Just Burn" and found no problems which were previously encountered with the Adaptec Easy CD creator software supplied by HP. This was demonstrated to the complainant who was asked to use the "Just Burn" software for overcoming his problems. However, the complainant for reasons best known to him was insistent and adamant and informed that he would only use the Adaptec Easy CD creator software supplied by HP. Under such circumstances, it was suggested to the complainant that he should seek assistance from HP technical expert/support. The computer manufactured by O.P. 1 was of good quality. The complaint should be dismissed for non -joinder of HP viz., Hewlett Packard India Ltd., from whom the complainant purchased the CD Writer. The complainant without giving reply to the various e -mails sent by O.P. 1, on 26.6.2000 had come forward with the present complaint. The complainant purchased the optional Carepaq on 15.12.1999 and only after three months from the date of purchase of computer the same had become defective. The warranty given for the computer was only for manufacturing defect, if any, in the parts and there was no warranty that the computer would work without proper driver. Even according to the complainant, due to the CD writer, the computer was not working perfectly. The other allegations were denied. There was no cause of action.