OSCAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs. KOMLA VARADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order dated 30.9.2003, the appellant has been directed to refund of Rs.47,000/- towards the price of the computer system purchased by the respondent and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment the respondent suffered as the computer did not function properly even for a day. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal.

(2.) Relevant facts in short are that the respondent purchased a personal computer from the appellant for a sum of Rs.47,000/-. Its primary Master Hard Disk conked off within few days of its purchase and the appellant took months for fitting new disk as the replacement was to come from Singapore. In spite of replacement of the disk, the computer did not function properly as there was problem in the software, internet and e-mail. It is alleged that the engineer of the appellant could not rectify the defects and consequently the computer was replaced by a new computer. But the new computer also did not function to the satisfaction of the respondent. On failure of primary Master Hard Disk valuable information, important letters and handwritten articles were lost. Instead of some of convenience computer became a source of agony and harassment. In spite of that fact that it was retained by the appellant for one and half months for removing the defects, the defects could not be removed. According to the appellant, the computer system was a perfect machine manufactured by them under warranty and international quality of components were used besides other crucial components like ROM, CD-ROM drive. FDD are of international standard. Any defective components supply requiring modular replacement were replaced promptly. It is contended by the Counsel of appellant that it was on account of very little knowledge of the respondent about the machine usage that the computer could not function properly though the respondent was guided and helped by the engineers of the appellant to uphold commercial morality. The Counsel for the appellant offered to replace the second computer or in the alternative requested for referring the matter to a technical expert in terms of Sec.13 of the Act. We are afraid this is not such a matter which needs to be referred to a technical experts as the consumer is concerned with satisfactory functioning of the computer and the fact that first computer was replaced and the fact that computer in question was attended by the engineers and mechanics of the appellant time and again shows that the computer was having such defects which were difficult to be rectified or removed. This suggestion of the Counsel for the appellant for referring the matter to a technical expert is misconceived. But we deem that by repeatedly replacing the computer system is unwarranted and uncalled for as it is likely to give rise to further complaints and litigation and, therefore, the District Forum rightly ordered to refund the price of the computer. In the result appeal is dismissed. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room.