DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 47 of 2019

 

 

Sri Prasenjit Biswas 

S/O. Lt. P. K. Biswas,

Resident of Biswas House at Malanchanagar, Kunjavan,

P.O.-Kunjavan, NCC, P.S.-Agartala, PIN-799006,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. H.P. Services,

C/O. M/S Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. 

Old Colonel House (Singhapara), 45 HGB Road,

Post Office Chowmohni, P.S. -West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001.................................................................. Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

For the Complainant : In-person.

 

 

For the O.P. : Sri Bhaskar Debroy,

  Sri Krishnendu Debnath,

  Advocates. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 05/02/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Prasenjit Biswas, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice by the O.P. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant gave his HP Laptop computer No.CND4338HZ on 2nd May, 2019 to the O.P. i.e. HP. Services for minor repairing works after encountering a problem with the computer that it cannot be charged and it was considered that its battery was to be replaced. Thereafter few days i.e. on 6th May, 2019 the service firm had returned the Laptop along with a bill, it was found to his surprise that the firm had charged an amount of Rs.8000/- for “New Display, motherboard repair with services & diagnosed charged” for getting back the Laptop. It was further found that many letters of this Laptop viz. 'O' & 'H' did not work, one of the USB ports did not work besides there was major fault in keypad for which multiple letters appear on the screen without any key being pressed. Thus, it became clear that the Laptop which was in immaculate condition before repairs with a small problem that it could not be charged was completely damaged by this firm in the name of repairs through their act of cheating and deceit. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a letter on 30th May, 2019 to the said service provider firm through postal Dak & the same was communicated to them. The O.P. confirmed to have received the said communication through mail also. Then through a messenger sent the Complainant parts of damaged keyboard etc. purportedly replaced by them with 2 Tax invoices dated 6th May, 2019 & 21st May, 2019 respectively for Rs.8,000/-(paid) & another Rs.1,700/- to be paid in addition. It is evident that the O.P. has damaged the Laptop in the name of repairs and charged exorbitant amount through deceit and had the guts to demand more money in the name of repairs after receiving money in the name of “diagnose charged”. The Complainant waited patiently for last about a month with the expectation that good sense would prevail and the firm shall refund the money taken by them through deceit without actually providing the requisite services. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.50,000/-  as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony from the O.P.  

 

2. Notice was issued upon the O.P. on admission of the complaint and thereafter O.P. has appeared by engaging Lawyer namely Sri Bhaskar Debroy and sought for time for filing written objection. Thereafter written objection was submitted on behalf of the O.P. 

        In the written statement the O.P. stated that there was no fault or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The complaint is filed with false and fabricated story. It is further stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are totally false. Ultimately, the O.P. challenged the maintainability of the complaint.  

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

  Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 5 documents comprising 06 sheets under a Firisti dated 05/07/2019. The documents are namely Photo copy of the bill No.267 dated 06/05/2019, Copy of the letter of the Complainant dated 30th May, 2019, Email of the Firm dated 3rd June, 2019 responding to the letter dated 30th May, 2019, Received Challan dated 16/05/2019 & Tax Invoices dated 06/05/2019 & 21/05/2019. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side.

    On behalf of the O.P. one witness namely Sri Biswanath Chakraborty, C/O. M/S Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. was examined and cross examined by the Complainant side.   In this case the O.P. produced 8 documents under a Firisti dated 06/09/2019. The documents are namely Copy of receive dated 06/05/2019 and Scamper Technologies, Copy of bill dated 06/05/2019, Copy of received dated 16/05/2019 of the Firm, Copy of tax-invoice dated 06/05/2019, Copy of tax invoice dated 21/05/2019, Original Copy of Authorised letter, Copy of E-mail taxt dated 21/05/2019 & Copy of E-mail dated 03/06/2019 downloaded from net. On identification the documents are marked as Exhibit-A series. The O.P. was cross examined by the Complainant side.   

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complaint as well as written statement and having regard to the evidences adduced by the parties, the following points cropped up for determination:

     (I).  Whether the complaint is maintainable in law?           

   (II). Whether the O.P. has committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant and have also indulged an unfair trade practices?

   (II). Whether the complainant is entitled to get  any compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

 

5. ARGUMENTS:

At the time of argument the Counsel of the O.P. remained absent. A chance was also given for filing written argument but O.P. failed. The Complainant submitted his written argument, we also heard him. Now, we will decide the case on merit. 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

                We will decide issue No.1 first: On perusal of the complaint we do not find any specific averment in respect of the Ownership of the Laptop. At Para No.3 of the complaint, we find that the Complainant gave his HP Laptop computer No.CND4338HZ to the above mentioned HP Computer Service Firm located at the above mentioned address on 02/05/2019 for minor repairing works. After encountering  problem with the Computer that it can not be charged, it was considered that its battery was to be replaced. From this Para-3, it seems that the Complainant himself is the owner of the Laptop but from the Exhibited documents of both sides we find that one Smt. Falguni Biswas is the owner of the Laptop and her name was mentioned in the Exhibited documents(Bill). Even in the tax invoice the name of Smt. Falguni Biswas was mentioned. In the cross examination, the Complainant admitted that Smt. Falguni Biswas is his wife and he did not submit any documents to prove that he is the owner of the Laptop which was given to the O.P. for repairing. He also admitted that he did not submit any authorization letter to show that he has been authorized by his wife to file this complaint. 

              So, from the above facts and the evidences we found that the Complainant is not the owner of the Laptop and no authorization letter was submitted by him to file the complaint. In this regard, the provision of Section 2 Sub-section 1(b) of C.P. Act,1986 is very much relevant. As per definitions clause the Complainant must be a consumer and in case of death of consumer, his legal heir or representative may be a Complainant. Since the present Complainant is not the owner of the Laptop and there is no authorization letter in this behalf we are of the opinion that the Complaint is not maintainable in law.         

Accordingly, this issue No.1 is decided. Now we will decide the rest issues together. 

Allegation or dispute, which is found a dispute of dis-satisfaction in respect of repairing service of a Laptop. From the written statement as well as the evidences adduced by the O.Ps., we found that they did not admit the allegations. The nature of the allegations is as such that it can not be decided simply by the oral evidence as because it is a matter of technology. Moreover, the Laptop was not produced before the Commission. So, it is not possible for this Commission to decide the issues without proper evidence or report of expert. So, we are of the opinion that the Complainant also failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the allegations. 

Accordingly, both the issues are decided in the negative. 

 

7. In the result, it is decided that the complaint petition is not maintainable in law as well as the Complainant has failed to prove his case by way of adducing sufficient evidence in support of the allegation of deficiency in service. 

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the order to the Complainant free of cost. 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  DR  (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA