23-09-14 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the ordersheet.

1.       Heard the parties on the point of limitation.

          On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about one month in filing this appeal is condoned.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, father of the Complainant/Respondent appearing in person on merit.

3.       This complaint was filed by Mr. Akash Anand alleging that the appellant charged Rs. 12,500/- for replacement of LCD panel of his Laptop Computer during warranty period which amounts to deficiency in service.

4.       Learned Lower Forum directed the appellants and R-2 to pay Rs. 12,500/- and also compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and  litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant, within 60 days, failing which, they shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of the order till realization.

5.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the Job Card it will appear that LCD was broken, which is not covered under the warranty but the learned Lower Forum passed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that R-2/O.P. 3 /H.P. Company did not say anywhere that LCD panel was not covered under warranty.

6.       On the other hand, Mr. Srivastava supported the impugned judgment and submitted that he had to sign on the Job Card under duress as otherwise the LCD panel would not have been replaced.

7.       The said submission on Mr. Srivastava is not acceptable.  It is his own case that when he approached the Service Center/ the appellants, he was informed that LCD panel was not covered under warranty and therefore he has to pay the charges for replacement,  which he refused to pay but then he succumbed and agreed to pay Rs. 12,500/-.

          Therefore he cannot dispute that LCD panel was found broken as mentioned in the Job Card and on which he put his signature. 

Mr. Srivastava produced before us the LCD panel which was returned to him by the appellant, after replacement.  We also found that it is broken.  Mr. Srivastava admitted that it was not broken at the time of purchase and it was working properly. 

8.       It appears that replacement of broken panel is not covered under the warranty.  The learned Lower Forum has approached the case from wrong angle.  It is a case of broken LCD panel and not a case of defective or non-working LCD panel.  If it was a case of defective/non-working LCD panel, it could be covered within warranty.

          After carefully considering the entire matter, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment, which is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.  

Let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant, be returned within four weeks.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

   Ranchi,    

Dated: 23.09.2014