CLASSIC SYSTEM Vs. MANJU KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II], dated 28.7.2004 in Complaint Case No.115 of 2002, Smt. Manju Khanna V/s. M/s. Classic System and Ors.

(2.) The complainant's case, in brief, is that O. P. No.3, one Mr. Drip Jot Singh alleged to be authorised agent of O. P. No.1, took the complainant to O. P. Nos.1 and 2 from whom the complainant bought a computer and the same was assembled and delivered by O. P. No.1 on 8.3.2001 vide Bill No. C-39 of the same date. The bill was issued and signed by O. P. No.2 as the authorised signatory of O. P. No.1. The computer started giving trouble in September, 2001 as its mother board, modem and hard disc were not functioning properly. Matter was reported to O. P. Nos.2 and 3 and the computer was repaired at the workshop of O. P. No.1 and was delivered after 15 days. The computer was being used by the complainant's son, who was at the time of repairs away to his Polytechnic near Moga and who later fractured his leg and remained in bed for about four months, hence the computer was checked by him only in January, 2002 and it was found that the old problems were still persisting and CD Rom was also not functioning properly. The problems were reported to the O. Ps. but the computer was not repaired even though the computer was within warranty period. The complainant served a legal notice dated 26.7.2002 asking the O. Ps. to repair or replace the computer but the O. Ps. did not comply and hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking following relief: "it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted with costs and respondents may kindly be directed to replace the computer in question and deliver a new computer to the complainant and make the payment of amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of damage along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-. "

(3.) Initially Mr. Parveen Garg, Advocate, appeared on behalf of both O. P. Nos.1 and 2 but later pleaded no instructions from O. P. No.2 and hence O. P. No.2 was proceeded against ex parte.