Md. Shaheen,

s/o. Md. Iliyas,

village – Uttar Pirpur, P.O. Banibon,

P.S. Uluberia, District –Howrah,

PIN – 711316.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

East Service Centre,

proprietor Sri Subhasis Das,

Nona (  Goruhata ), P.O. & P.S. Uluberia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711315.------------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                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

1.               Complainant, Md. Shaheen,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p to refund Rs. 43,364/- being the purchase price and service charge of the laptop in question, to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment along with a litigation costs and other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.               Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one laptop on 24-12-2011 from O.P. on payment of Rs. 42,000/- vide invoice dated 24-12-2011 and original documents were not supplied even after on 25-12-2011. It is alleged that the laptop was not running smoothly and on 27-01-2013, the laptop was given to O.P. for repairing purpose vide memo no. 251 dated 27-01-2013. Complainant enquired about the repairing work, but O.P. did not do the same. Moreover, on 03-02-2013 on demand of O.P. complainant further paid Rs. 1,364/- vide money receipt no. 124 towards repairing cost. But even then, O.P. failed to repair the laptop and deliver the same to the complainant.  Thereafter, complainant sent a lawyer’s notice to O.P. on 11-06-2013 with a request to give him a new laptop, which is received by O.P. on 12-06-2013. Complainant went to O.P.’s shop on several occasions with the same request. But O.P. neither gave him a new one nor return him the older one that causes a severe mental agony to the complainant. Finding no other alternative and being frustrated complainant filed this instant case praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.               Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. It is the specific plea of O.P. that the time of delivery of the laptop, it was under sealed packet which was opened in from of the complainant and inside the packet all original documents were there including warranty card and the manual for operating the laptop. It is   only due to his manhandling that the laptop was not functioning properly. Moreover, on 13-01-2013 warranty period expired and the complainant is required to pay all repairing cost. But here we find, complainant paid Rs. 1,364/-  as repairing cost on 03-02-2013 on demand of the O.P. And there is no document filed by O.P. to show that they have repaired the laptop and raised a bill in favour of the complainant. Complainant should be informed about the actual repairing cost of the laptop. It makes no sense that without doing anything, O.P. has  retained the laptop for a long period which really caused physical, mental and financial loss to the complainant. It is also surprising that immediately after expiry of the warranty period, the laptop started giving problem. It means definitely the laptop was having an inherent defect which could not be rectified by O.P. even after receiving service charges of Rs. 1,364/- on 03-02-2013. It is to be mentioned that O.P.  is running a business which is based on consumer satisfaction which O.P. did not keep in mind. So,  O.P. has been found to be seriously negligent in providing service to the complainant.

Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 377 of 2013 ( HDF 377 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 43,364/- to the complainant within one month from this order.

      That the o.p. is  further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

      The O.P. is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 49,364/- within one month from this order, i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment. 

      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