DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 263-13
Ms. Sandhya Gupta
W/o Shri Sachin Gupta
Off: 104, MS Chamber
C-1/A, Vikas Marg
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainant
Vs.
- Mr. Deepak, Authorized person of M/s. Shiva Solution
- Mr. Praveen, Executive of M/s. Shiva Solution
- Mr. Vipin,
Executive of M/s. Shiva Solution
L-30, Shastri Nagar
P.N.B. Road, New Delhi – 110 052 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 22.04.2013
Judgment Reserved for : 21.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 14.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
JUDGEMENT
This complaint has been filed by an advocate Ms. Sandhya Gupta, against Mr. Deepak, Authorized person of M/s. Shiva Solution, Mr. Praveen and Mr. Vipin, both Executives of M/s. Shiva Solution, L-30, Shastri Nagar, P.N.B. Road, New Delhi – 110 052 alleging “deficiency in services”.
2. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant had some problem with the screen display of her COMPAQ laptop model CQ-40 S/No/ 9441 MVVV. On 30.11.2011, the executive Mr. Praveen of OP examined the laptop at the residence of the complainant and stated that LF or screen might have some problem and he would come again with required parts.
It was further stated that on 02.12.2011, another executive of OP visited the office of the complainant alongwith screen and LF, but defect could not be repaired and had to be taken to service centre of OP. Rupees 200/- were paid as advance of the estimated cost of repairs of Rs. 1200/-. It was also stated that on 06.12.2011, executive Shri Vipin took the laptop of the complainant and assured that laptop shall be returned in the evening. However, on 08.12.2011, the complainant was telephonically informed by Shri Deepak that the mother board of the laptop required intensive repairs and cost will be Rs. 7000/-. The complainant was shocked to see that the power section of the laptop was not working when her laptop was handed over by Shri Vipin, executive with the OP. The complainant has prayed for Rs. 28,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., which is the cost of the laptop, Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment, mental tortures and financial loss to the complainant.
3. Notice was duly served but OP chose not to appear, thus, was proceeded ex-parte on 06.12.2013.
4. The complainant filed her ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and got exhibited copy of receipt of laptop through email, issued by OP (CW-1/1), emails sent to OP (CW-1/2) & (CW-1/3), legal notice (CW-1/4), postal receipts (CW-1/5) & (CW-1/6) and service checklist (CW-1/7).
5. We have heard the complainant as OP did not put appearance. All the allegations against them remain uncontroverted. The complainant has relied on service checklist, where it has been written that “power section in working when I have received laptop but delivered power section not working”. This clearly proves that OP instead of repairing the laptop, damaged the laptop.
Laptop, these days is an indispensible device in every profession, especially in the legal field, drafting is entirely dependent on this device. The complainant has placed on record an invoice for Rs. 6,500/- dated 02.02.2012 , issued by Applied Technologies, which the complainant had to shell out of her pocket for fixing the laptop.
5. Hence, we direct OPs to pay Rs. 6,500/- for the expenses incurred by the complainant in fixing the laptop. We further award Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The above said directions are to be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order. If the awarded amount was not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realisation.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
