DATE OF FILING : 26/04/2013 DATE OF S/R : 22/05/2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13/09/2013 MOTILAL JHALANI Flat no. 302, 3rd floor, Radha Krishna Apartment, near Hans Khali Pul, Opposite Amar Jyoti Apartment, Baultolla, Howrah 711 109---------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - DIGICOMP COMPLETE SOLUTIONS LTD. 3, Gokul Boral Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 012, Represented by its Manager.------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIY. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R The complainant Motilal Jhalani, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. to pay an amount of ‘30,000/- as compensation for causing monetary loss and mental agony along with litigation cost incidental to the filing of this instant case. Brief fact of the case is that complainant gave his laptop to O.P. for repairing purpose on 07.01.2013 vide Annexure 1.But till 04.02.2013 it was neither repaired nor delivered to the complainant by O.P. So on 04.02.2013, complainant made a call to O.P. over telephone to know the status of the repairing job. But even after waiting for a long time, no call was made by O.P. as per their assurance. And at about 4.30 p.m. the complainant made another call to O.P. and O.P. informed him that on completion of the repairing work, he would be called for taking delivery of his laptop. Again after a long time. i.e. on 22.02.2013, complainant again made an enquiry about his laptop. Although O.P. assured him to revert back to him within 30 minutes but till 4.40 p.m. there was no call from O.P. Ultimately complainant again made a call and he was informed that another one week would be required for such repairing job as O.P. did not get the required spare parts, namely, ‘Back Cable’ from their Bangalore Office. Immediately on the same day i.e. 22.03.2013 complainant contacted their Bangalore Office over phone being no. 080-41205444 wherefrom he was advised to contact over their another phone no being 080-26758060. After contacting over the last phone number, complainant was asked to contact over another no. being 080-65790991. At this last number one, Ms. Jyoti, advised the complainant to send e-mail giving all details. He immediately sent e-mail to her on 22.02.2013. The complainant further stated that in between 08.02.2013 and 21.03.2013 he sent innumerable e-mails to O.P. vide Annexure ‘B’. On 02.03.2013, O.P. informed the complainant that they received ‘Back Cable’ from their Bangalore Office and also informed that the LCD of the laptop was not working. Complainant being astonished told them that they never informed him that the LCD was not working on any previous telephonic discussion nor O.P. furnished any estimate for such repairing work. As O.P. informed him on 02.03.2013 that the repairing work required `7000- `8000 cost, complainant found it to be very high. So on 05.03.2013 complainant wanted to take back his laptop and asked O.P. over telephone whether he should come. O.P. asked him to come and take delivery of the same. At the time of taking delivery, complainant discovered that ‘wireless cover’ of the laptop was missing. And it was informed to the concerned person, who told that the person who was looking after the repairing job was absent and he should come on another day for taking delivery of ‘wireless cover’. That person namely Mr. Prasenjit Das, also noted the fact of “wireless cover mission” on the delivery challan. On 07.03.2013, complainant again contacted over phone and enquired about the ‘wireless cover’ but could not get any satisfactory result. But till 21.03.2013 complainant could not get that missing “wireless Cover” from O.P. Being frustrated and aggrieved complainant filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service against O.P. for holding the laptop for long 57 days for a simple repairing job. Notice was served. One Mr. Kaustav Mitra appeared on behalf of O.P. but no written version was filed by them. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte. DECISSION WITH REASONS We have carefully gone through the petition of complainant along with Annexures and affidavit and noted its content. If at all it is true that ‘Back Cable’ was required for the repairing job which was to come from Bangalore, O.P. could have returned the laptop within 2-3 days informing the complainant that as soon as they would get ‘Back Cable’, they would call him over phone and he would have taken it to them again. But unnecessarily, they retained his laptop for a very long time without giving any estimated cost for the same. This is nothing but gross negligence on part of the O.P. Moreover even after appearing before this Forum, O.P. did not file any written version which clearly shows that O.P. has nothing to put forward in their favour. As a result, the allegations of the complainant made out against O.P. remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. Accordingly, the case succeeds against O.P. without cost. Hence, Ordered That the CC case No. 128 of 2013 (HDF 128 of 2013) be and the same is allowed ex parte with cost against the O.P. That the O.P. is directed to pay an amount of `5000/- as compensation and `1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this order i.d. the entire amount of `6000 shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) (T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, Member, President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah | 
