CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.853/2008
MR. P.S. ASTHANA
B-3/2, GROUND FLOOR,
RANA PRATAP BAGH,
DELHI-110007
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
MR. ANIL TANEJA
PROPRIETOR
COMPUTER WORLD SYSTEM
112, BAJAJ HOUSE, 97, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:03.12.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
Mr. P.S. Asthana, complainant herein, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Mr. Anil Taneja, Prop. Computer World System, herein referred to as the OP, and submitted that the complainant had given his LAPTOP make Dell/Inspinion along with its adopter on 19.12.2007 for its repairs to the OP and the OP gave his visiting card to the complainant and on the back of the said card, the OP acknowledged the receipt of the said LAPTOP. It is submitted that the said LAPTOP was given to the OP in the presence of Shri Kamal Oswal. It is further submitted that the OP had personally informed the complainant that he would provide the estimate for its repairing within 3 days over telephone to the complainant and the same would be repaired after approval of the charges by the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the OP never sent the estimate of repairs expenses nor made any telephonic call though the complainant had several times contacted the OP for the said purpose, and the last such phone call was made on 29.7.2008 and finally through letter dated 18.8.2008 complainant requested the OP to repair the LAPTOP but there was no response by the OP and consequently, the OP was served with a legal notice dated 4.9.2008 which was replied by the OP vide its reply dated 19.9.2008 denying that the OP had received any LAPTOP from the complainant for repairs. It is submitted that the OP is liable for breach of contract as they have not complied with the terms of repairing for which the LAPTOP was given to the OP, and are thus liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and injury caused to him. The complainant has prayed that the OP might be directed to pay Rs.50000/- being the cost of the LAPTOP given to the OP for its repairing along with interest, compensation, and legal costs/expenses, etc.
The OP in its written statement submitted that the complaint is mala fide and abuse of the process of law and the complaint has been filed with oblique motive of harassing the OP and extorting money from him. The OP submitted that no laptop has ever been received by the OP and therefore no question of repairing or returning the said laptop arises. The OP further denied that the complainant had given his LAPTOP make dell/Inspiron or any other make along with its Adaptor on 19.12.2007 for its repairing to the OP or that the OP gave its visiting card to the complainant and on the back of the visiting card, the OP had acknowledged the receipt of the said LAPTOP. The OP further submitted that whenever the OP receives any laptop or other machines from its customers, a receipt is duly issued for the same detailing the make, model number, customer name, kind of complaint and rough estimate, etc. It is submitted that the visiting card of the OP has been obtained and misused by the complainant to harass the OP, and that the alleged visiting card was never issued by the OP as claimed. The OP further denied that the laptop was ever given by the complainant to the OP much less in the presence of Shri Kamal Oswal and Shri Mukesh Chauhan. The OP submits that the complainant appears to have devised a plan to fabricate false evidence and with that intention has named certain persons and made allegations which are blatantly false. It is submitted that the OP has never met or had any conversation with the complainant or had received any laptop whatsoever from the complainant, and that there was no question of breach of contract, negligence or misdeed on the part of the OP.
The complainant in his rejoinder denied the contentions in the reply, and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments and allegations made in the complaint.
The parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and also written arguments.
The complainant has specifically stated that he gave his laptop to OP on 19.12.2017 for repairing. OP has denied about receipt of the laptop. It is further stated that whenever OP receives any item for repair then a receipt is duly issued to the customer. OP has not placed even a single receipt on record to show that it has issued any receipt for repairs. In fact the visiting card of OP placed on record by the complainant, whereby OP has acknowledged receipt of a laptop make Dell/Inspinion, exposed OP completely. The acknowledgement regarding the receipt of Dell/Inspinion laptop is in the handwriting of OP and bears initials of OP which matches with the signature on his reply as well as affidavit hence there is no iota of doubt that it is written by OP and OP received the laptop for repair. We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant and he has proved beyond doubt that the laptop was duly received by OP and the same was not returned to the complainant after repair. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP has not placed any receipt on record showing the purchase price of the laptop, however, during the year 2007 the price of the laptop varied from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. It is not clear how much old the laptop was.
The interest of justice will suffice if OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complaint alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
