J.JOTHI RAJA vs HCL INFOSYSTEM LIMITED

THIS action came up for admission before us today.

LEARNED Counsel appearing for the complainant, namely M/s. P.K. Rajagopal and K. Santhakumari were called absent and no representation is made on their behalf. We perused the averments in the complaint and other connected documents filed alongwith it. Such perusal reveals the following factors :

The complainant purchased a computer and the necessary and requisite accessories from the 3rd opposite party dealer during the period between 16.11.1998 and 10.12.1998.

IT appears the complainant purchased the system alongwith TVSE 500 VA start UPS at a total cost of Rs. 49,090/-. She also bought one number GCL bullet 33.6 KBPS fax modem at a cost of Rs. 4,000/- and also one number of Samsung MJ 640 A colour inkjet printer at a cost of Rs. 7,250/- all totalling to Rs. 60,340/-. The computer and accessories, it appears, were purchased by her for commercial purpose. The purchase bills and other documents point out the existence of a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase.

IT appears that the computer and the accessories purchased were not functioning right from the inception of purchase in view of certain inherent defects in the said computer and the accessories. The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are the manufacturers of the computer and the accessories etc. According to the complainant, since there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective computer alongwith accessories, they are duty bound to either rectify the defect or to replace the computer alongwith the accessories within the warranty period of one year. Claim for damages quantified in a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- is also prayed for. The complaint for such alleged deficiencies had been instituted before this Commission on 5.7.1999 as getting revealed by the seal affixed on the docket of the complaint.

THE averments incorporated in the complaint of course prima facie points out that the complainant is a consumer falling within the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") in view of the fact that the complaint had been filed within the warranty period of one year notwithstanding the fact that the computer that was purchased was for commercial purpose.

THE value of the computer alongwith accessories is only Rs. 60,340/-. THE complainant evaluated the damages to be paid to her by the opposite party for the deficiency in service on their part is to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-. No tangible material worth the name in the shape of document had been placed on record to pinpoint how the damages in astronomical figures of Rs. 7,00,000/- had been evaluated. We are of the view that the evaluation of damages in such astronomical figures is for the purpose of attracting the jurisdiction of this Commission added by the fact that no Court-fee is required to be paid for any claim instituted before the FORA constituted under the Act. Even assuming for argument sake that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to any damage for such deficiency in service, such damage we rather feel, inclusive of the cost of the computer and its accessories cannot exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. For the reasons as above, this complaint is returned to be presented before the competent Forum having the necessary and requisite jurisdiction of course after making necessary amendments in the averments of the complaint within a period of two months from today. the office is also directed to return the complaint to the complainant or his Counsel after getting the necessary endorsement for the return so made. O.P. disposed of.