IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of December, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 97/2018 (Filed on 25-05-2018)
Petitioner : Salik Chandran,
S/o. P.G. Chandran,
Perumbaickadu village,
Kumaranelloor P.O,
Kottayam - 686016
(Adv. K. Karjet)
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) Deepu A.P.
Proprietor,
M/s. ITS Smart Point,
Sakhi Building,
Opp. Bar-B-Que-Inn
M.C. Road, Choottuvely Jn.
S.H. Mount P.O. Kottayam
Pin – 686006
(2) Mahesh,
Sales Manager,
M/s. ITS Smart Point,
Sakhi Building,
Opp. Bar-B_Que-Inn
M.C. Road, Choottuvely Jn.
S.H. Mount P.O. Kottayam
Pin – 686006
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. K. Santhosh Kumar)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complainant entrusted his Dell XPS-15 model laptop to the opposite parties on 8-11-2017 for display repairs. The second opposite party after inspection of the laptop informed the complainant that the display of the laptop was faulty and cannot be repaired and that for the proper function of the laptop, the display needs replacement. On 8-11-2017 the second opposite party informed the complainant that the display of the laptop was replaced and it was ready for delivery. The complainant paid Rs.5,500/- to the opposite parties as replacement charge. When the complainant got the laptop he tried to function it, it is found that the display is not yet functioning well and that lock of the LCD panel of the laptop both front and back got broken due to improper handling and opening. Therefore the complainant demanded the opposite parties to properly repair the laptop and also to fix a new lock system in place of the damaged locks. On 11-11-2017 the opposite party returned the laptop to the complainant. After reaching home when the complainant tried to function the laptop it is found that the display was not properly replaced and repaired, and further that broken lacks were clandestinely joined with feviquick in not proper alignment. Thereafter on several days, the complainant contacted the opposite parties for proper repairs and replacement of the damaged locks but it was not yielded by the opposite parties raising lame excuses. It is averred in the complaint that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties severe mental agony, and hardship were caused to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as the depreciated value of the laptop and Rs.10,0000 as compensation for the hardship and mental agony caused to him.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed joint version contending as follows:
The first opposite party is conducting a business under the name and style of M/S ITS Smart Point. On 8-11-2017 the complainant reached the business concern of the first opposite party and purchased a Laptop display panel for an amount of Rs.4661. The complainant has not entrusted the Laptop to the opposite party for repairing /reassembling. All the averments contrary to the said facts are false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked exhibits A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties.
Expert commission report is marked as exhibit C1.
On the evaluation of the complaint version and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so what are the reliefs and costs?
Point number 1 and 2
The specific case of the complainant is that on 8-11-2017 he entrusted his Dell XPS-15 model laptop to the opposite parties for display repairs. Though the display was replaced by the opposite parties on 8-11-2017, it is found that the display is not yet functioning well and that lock of the LCD panel of the laptop both front and back got broken due to improper handling and opening. On 11-11-2017 the opposite party returned the laptop to the complainant, but when the complainant tried to function the laptop it is found that the display was not properly replaced and repaired, and further that broken locks were clandestinely joined with feviquick in not proper alignment.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties stating that on 8-11-2017 complainant purchased a Laptop display panel for an amount of Rs.4,661/- and the complainant has not entrusted the Laptop to the opposite party for repairing /reassembling.
It is proved by exhibit A1 which is issued by the first opposite party for an amount of Rs. 5,500 towards the price of the display for laptop 15.6” W-LED-Comp-1 . in Exhibit C1 report expert commissioner has stated that the front and back panels are broken due to the improper handling during the repair and replacement of display. He further reported in exhibit C1 that the broken locks of the front and back panels are concealed using some kind of adhesive and panels are misplaced during the process, which is the main reason for breaking due to the broken panels the hinges are not working and unable to close the bezel. It is categorically reported by the expert commissioner that the cracks were caused due to improper handling and misplaced insertion of the front and back panel.
Thus it is proved that the damage to the laptop was due to improper handling during the repair works.
Exhibit A5 is the sticker affixed by the opposite parties on the back side of the laptop depicting the name of one. Pranesh K.P and mob no. 9633350813. Thus it is clear that the laptop was entrusted to the opposite parties for repair works. If the complainant did not entrust the laptop to the opposite parties as claimed by them there is no need to affix the sticker on the back side of the laptop. In order to prove their case the opposite parties insisted for the cross-examination of the complainant and the same was allowed by this commission and an advocate is appointed as commissioner to record the deposition of the complainant. But the opposite parties did not care to pay the commission batta to the advocate commissioner and later they submitted that they are not insisting for the cross-examination of the complainant. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. Thus we are of the opinion that the
opposite parties have committed fault and imperfection in rectifying the defect of the laptop which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant prayed for Rs.30,000/- as the depreciated value of the laptop. In order to prove the price of the laptop the complainant produced exhibit A2 tax invoice. On perusal of exhibit A2, we can see that the same was issued for the purchase of an HP laptop. Admittedly the complainant had entrusted the Dell XPS-15 model laptop to the opposite parties for display repairs. Neither in the complaint nor in the proof affidavit the complainant disclosed the date of purchase of the said laptop and the price of the same. Without knowing the date of manufacturing and date of purchase we cannot calculate the depreciated value of the laptop in dispute. No doubt due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that allowing compensation of Rs.7,500/- would meet the ends of justice. Thus we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.7500/- compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the complainant is at liberty to realize the awarded amount from the opposite parties with an interest @9% from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of December, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Invoice dtd.08-11-17 for Rs.5,500/- issued by opposite party
A2 - Invoice dtd.08-11-17 for Rs.45,000/- issued by opposite party
A3 – Printout of statement for A/c.915010012893632 between 01-11-17 and
30-11-17
A4 – Sticker of backside of laptop
A5 –CD
A6- Copy of conservation between Praneeth and Deepu (Sub. to proof)
Commission Report
C1 – Report dtd.13-09-21 by Priyan John Thomas
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
