Per – Hon’ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/2/2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.618 of 2009, Mr. Alok Kumar Roy Vs. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Another.
[2] Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The Appellant/original Complainant had purchased a laptop from the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 on 5/6/2007 for `56,500/- and the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1 is the manufacturer of the said laptop. The warranty in respect of the said laptop was for a period of one year. The Appellant/original Complainant contended that the laptop was not working properly and he had to take the same to the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 for repairs. However, the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 used to take time for its repairs. After the warrant period was over, the Appellant/original Complainant had to spend an amount of `1,400/- for repairing the laptop and he had to spend this amount because of negligence on the part of the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2. The Appellant/original Complainant also contended that he was expecting a job in United States of America. However, he could not contact American company in time because the laptop was not working properly. The Appellant/original Complainant had requested the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 to replace the laptop. However, the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 had not paid any heed to his request and hence, the Appellant/original Complainant had filed a consumer complaint praying that the Respondents/original Opponents may be directed to pay `9,73,436/- as compensation in lieu of mental agony and price of the laptop.
[3] The Respondents/original Opponents contested the complaint denying allegations of the Appellant/original Complainant that the laptop was faulty. They further contended that they have removed the defects in the laptop as were pointed out by the Appellant/original Complainant. The Respondents/original Complainants further contended that the defect in the laptop was in respect of DVD Writer and they have replaced the DVD Writer. The Respondents/original Opponents further contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
[4] The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Respondents/original Opponents, rejoinder filed by the Appellant/original Complainant, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of their advocates, partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1 to pay to the Appellant/original Complainant an amount of `30,000/- within a period six weeks and failing which the amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as against the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2. Aggrieved by this order the Appellant/original Complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of the compensation awarded.
[5] We heard the Appellant/original Complainant in person.
[6] It was a contention of the Appellant/original Complainant that the Respondents/original Opponents have indulged into ‘unfair trade practice’ by selling him a defective laptop. However, the Appellant/original Complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his case that the laptop was defective. On the contrary, during the warranty period the Respondents/original Opponents have repaired the laptop and removed the defects pointed out by the Appellant/original Complainant. Hence, this is not a case of indulging into unfair trade practice or sale of defective goods. The District Forum observed that the Appellant/original Complainant had to take the laptop to the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2 for removing the defects and the Respondents/original Opponents used to take time in removing the defects and for this deficiency in service, the District Forum had granted compensation of `30,000/- to the Appellant/original Complainant. Further, it is not the case of the Appellant/original Complainant that the laptop is not working. Hence, this is not a case of unfair trade practice or manufacturing defect in the laptop. It is a case of inconvenience caused to the Appellant/original Complainant and the District Forum has compensated the Appellant/original Complainant reasonably.
[7] No doubt, the Appellant/original Complainant is a well-educated person. He tried to argue that his case is a case of manufacturing defect in the laptop. However, the Appellant/original Complainant has not filed any evidence to prove manufacturing defect in the laptop before the District Forum. We find that the order passed by the District Forum is just and fair and meets the ends of justice. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is not admitted and stands rejected summarily.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly
Pronounced on 03rd April, 2012
