Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 193.
Instituted on : 26.05.2014.
Decided on : 17.02.2017.
Mohit Verma, s/o Ramesh Chander Verma, H.No.1002, W.No.24, Jagdish Colony Rohtak(Haryana)-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Computer Planet, shop No.3-4, Improment Trust Market, Near Appu Ghar, Opp. ADC Office, Rohtak(Haryana)-124001.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Amit Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vipul Kapoor, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a laptop Online via Dell Exclusive Store Gurgaon on 2nd March 2012 and it has been perfectly working fine since then. It is averred that on 30 March 2014 a problem with the network connectivity was detected in the above laptop. Neither LAN(Eethernet) Port nor Wifi(wifeless) was working. It is averred that complainant contacted with the opposite party for the alleged defect. It is averred that owner of the computer Planet referred it to one of his employee of his shop who turned on the laptop and checked the connectivity. After finding its not detecting any network, he took the same to his own shop, just in front of computer planet. Mr. Jitendra, in service shop also checked the connectivity while the computer was on. With no connectivity he asked the complainant to leave the computer as it was needed to be open for checking the LAN card. It is averred that complainant insisted on it to be repaired in front of the complainant because he was in need of the laptop on regular basis. But the opposite party asked the complainant to come in day time. So the complainant on 05.04.2014 took his laptop directly to Mr. Jitendra(service shop) and he opened the laptop and checked for problems related to internet connectivity. But he handled the laptop in a non-professional way and the same was dead but he tried to put the fault on the complainant that he brought the laptop to him in dead state. He asked the complainant to leave the laptop with him for repair but lateron it was told that the repair will take time and the complainant had to bear the expenses in repairing the motherboard of laptop. It is averred that complainant contacted the opposite party who assured to repair the same from Delhi but despite visiting the shop of opposite party multiple times, computer was not repaired. It is averred that due to non repairing of his laptop, the complainant suffered loss of opportunities & work in photography and he had to buy a new computer to carry on his work. It is averred that the act of opposite party has led the complainant to an extreme mental agony and harassment. As such by way of this complaint, complainant has requested a claim of Rs.114000/- on account of buying new computer as well as for mental agony and harassment.
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant visited the opposite party with the defective Dell Insprion Laptop only and asked the opposite party to inspect the same, if defect therein is rectifiable, then repair the same. On inspection made by the official of the opposite party, it was told to the complainant that it needs some spare electronic parts, which is not available with the opposite party. The complainant asked the opposite party to try in the market and tell him the invoice of same and on this complainant left the computer with the opposite party and till date has not visited to the opposite party in any manner to ask about the estimate of same. It is averred that complainant cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It is averred that the opposite party is till date is waiting the complainant to collect his said laptop as he had left the same but the complainant with ulterior motive has filed the present false complaint by taking undue advantage of Consumer Protection Act. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
7. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that there was a network connectivity problem in his laptop and as such he contacted the opposite party for checking the same and during the checking, the mechanic of the opposite party handled the laptop in non-professional way and had put the same in dead condition. It is further contended that the complainant had to purchase another laptop and has suffered loss due to non availability of laptop. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that complainant visited the opposite party with the defective Laptop only for inspection of the same and on inspection made by the official of the opposite party told the complainant that it needs some spare electronic parts, which is not available with the opposite party and asked the complainant to try in the market and tell him the invoice of same and on this complainant left the laptop with the opposite party and till date has not visited to the opposite party in any manner to ask about the estimate of same.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is not disputed that the complainant has contacted with the opposite party for checking of his laptop as the same was not working due to no network connectivity in his laptop. It is also not disputed that the same was got checked by the official of the opposite party. Regarding the defect appeared at the time of checking the laptop by the official of the opposite party, complainant has placed on record copy of affidavit Ex.CW3/A of Jitender Kumar who has submitted that he had worked as Technician in service centre of opposite party from April 2010 to September 2014 and on 01.04.2014 opposite party referred the complainant to him in the service centre for the problem with the network connectivity in the laptop and the complainant was asked to come on 05.01.2014 and on that date, during the checking “Something went wrong and the motherboard of the laptop got short in unusual manner” for which the opposite party asked the complainant to pay for this.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that since the motherboard of the laptop of complainant was short during repair/checking of the same by the official of the opposite party and as such opposite party is liable for the same. The price of the motherboard of Dell Inspiron N4110 is Rs.7500/- approximately. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the same. Regarding the loss claimed by the complainant suffered by him on account of loss of opportunities & work in photography, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2006(2) CLT 80 titled Ram Lubhai Vs. Finance Secretary to Government U.T.Electricity whereby Hon’ble U.T.State Commission Chandigarh has held that: “Without any cogent evidence of suffering of loss by complainant-compensation not allowed” , as per 2006(2) CLT 422 titled Neg Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others has held that: “Allegation that due to non-installation of transformer appellant-complainant suffering huge loss-No proof i.e. balance sheet, profit and loss account and bank statement submitted to prove this fact-Refund of deposited amount with interest @ 12% as ordered by the State Commission held proper”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant is only entitled for the cost of motherboard of laptop.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as cost of motherboard and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
12. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
