VINOD KUMAR DUDEJA Vs. APPOLO COMPUTERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Sec.15 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 24.3.2001, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No.443/2000-entitled Shri Vinod Kumar Dudeja V/s. Appolo Computers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant has filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had purchased a computer system on hire purchase basis from respondent No.1 on 5.4.1999. It was stated that at the time of installation of the system it was noticed that the components, which were fitted inside the CPU, were without the original packing and certain items, which were to be provided by the respondents free of cost, as per the agreement, had not been provided. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, was that the system, soon after installation, started giving troube and all the CPU components were replaced by the respondent on 27.7.1999. It was alleged that even after the replacement, the system continued to give trouble. In other words, the same was defective. It was stated that on the complaint of the appellant, the respondent changed the Mother Board of the system with an inferior quality Mother Board. The price difference between the two Mother Boards was approximately Rs.4,000/-. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, in nutshell, was that in spite of innumerable complaints, lodged by the appellant, the respondent failed to rectify the defects in the system. The appellant filed the complaint, before the District Forum, with the prayer that direction be given to the respondents to change the parts as prayed and the appellant be also awarded damages and cost of litigation.

(3.) The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondents and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, before the District Forum, the respondents took a preliminary objection to the effect that the appellant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act. It was also stated that the system provided to the appellant contained delicate parts and the appellant had mishandled the same and therefore was not entitled to any claim. It was also the stand of the respondents that the appellant was supplied by the respondents a Pentium-II equipment in the computer and the said equipment was got converted by the appellant without the knowledge of the respondents to Pentium-III thereby causing damage to the system as a whole on account of change in configuration, for which, the respondents were not liable. On merits, it was stated that the respondents supplied a computer system. The allegations that the original components were not supplied and fitted, were specifically denied. It was stated that the machine (system) was supplied to the appellant against a price agreed to and accepted by the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that there was no deficiency in service and the complaint, filed by the appellant, was liable to be dismissed.