Date of Filing:23-07-2018
Date of Order: 29-11-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM,(PGD (ADR) MEMBER
Friday, the 29th day of November, 2019
C.C.No.291 /2018
Between
Ch.Ramnath
S/o.Late Ch. Suryanarayana Murthy,
Aged about 50 years, Occ: LIC Employee,
R/o.H.No.1-9-291/7/A, Opp: Post office
Vidyanagar, Hyderabad – 500044 ……Complainant
And
Laptop Repair World
# Flat No.305, Tirupati Complex,
Paradise Circle, Secunderabad
Hyderabad – 03,
Rep. by its Manager/Authorized Representative ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite Party : M/s.G.V.S. Prasad
O R D E R
(By HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM., ,(PGD (ADR) MEMBER)
The above complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 against the opposite party, seeking this Forum to grant the following reliefs:
- To direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the entire cost of the laptop along with interest @ 18% p.a. to the complainant from the date of 19/6/2018 when the complainant took his laptop for repair to the opposite party’s service centre.
- To award compensation of Rs.25,000/-towards pain, suffering, and mental agony and
- To award cost of the complaint Rs.5000/-
Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
- The complainant took his laptop ( Intel Pad: Model No.U 310) with hinges problem to the Opposite Party’s service centre, Laptop Repair World in Secunderabad on 19/6/2018 for repair. A customer-call-cum-service report with Ref.No.4312 dt.19/6/2018 was generated and issued by the Service Engineer giving details of the condition of the laptop and informed the complainant that the laptop will be returned next day after repair. On being informed by the Opposite Party to come and collect his laptop, when the complainant went to the service centre of the O.P., to his utter dismay found the screen of the laptop broken. On questioning about the damage to the laptop screen, the O.P. denied that it happened in his shop stating that the damage was existing even before it was given for repair. In response to an online complaint No.785353 lodged by the complainant with the National Forum for Consumer Disputes on 20/6/2018, the O.P. called him to come and check the CC TV footage of the capturing his visit to the repair shop on 19/6/2018 for repair of his laptop. The complainant states that during the above visit, the O.P. along with his colleagues admitted to their fault and started negotiating with him to withdraw the complaint requesting to bear half the cost. Apparently, even without any such compromise by the complainant, the O.P. informed the Online National Forum for Consumer Disputes that the complainant has withdrawn the complaint. The Complainant pursued again through the Online National Forum for Consumer Disputes but in vain. Further to the letter dt.30/6/2018 addressed to return his laptop in good condition, the Opposite Party neither responded nor returned the laptop till the date of filing of the present complaint.
- The Opposite Party denied all the allegations in his written version stating that the screen of the laptop was damaged while in possession of the complainant and further submitted that the complainant was suggested to take back his laptop as the spare parts were not available with them. The O.P. denied any knowledge of the complainant’s online complainant and/or the compromise between the parties. Although the Opposite Party admitted that the there is every possibility of the screen to crack or break during the use of laptop which has problematic hinges, he denied that the damage happened while in possession of the laptop with the complainant and hence denied its occurrence during the same in their custody from 19/6/2018. While admitting that there is no mention of the screen damage in the customer call-cum-service report/work sheet, the O.P. stated that it was informed to the complainant and in fact, came forward to share the expenses of replacing the screen . The opposite Party also contended that as there is no valid consideration in the present complaint, it is not maintainable and hence the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer aas defined u/Sec.2 of The Consumer Protection Act.
- In the enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the averments in the complaint supporting his claim with 7 documents including the online complaint with National Forum for Consumer Disputes. The Manager of the Laptop Repair World filed the affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Party along with the Customer Call-cum-Service Report. A third-party affidavit was filed in support of the O.P’s contention that there is a possibility of the screen to crack or break during the use of laptop which has problematic hinges.
- Based on the facts and material brought on record, and written arguments submitted by both the parties, the following points have emerged or consideration:
- Whether the complainant comes under the definition of consumer as per Sec.2 of the C.P.Act?
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim/compensation made in the
iv)To what relief?
- Point No.1:- There is Exhibit A-1 & B-1, a customer-call-cum-service report with Ref.No.4312 dt.19/6/2018generated and issued by the Service Engineer giving details of the condition of the laptop, which clearly states the customer has to make payment and collect the material after repairs. Thus, establishing an implied contract with a promise of payment/consideration on completion of the contract. Hence, the complaint is maintainable and the complainant comes under the definition of consumer as defined under the Act.
6. Point No.2:- This contract is similar to bailment as defined under Sec. 148 of the Contract Act, and the Opposite Party as a bailee, becomes liable to take as much care of the goods bailed as is required by Sec. 151 of the Act until the purpose is accomplished and/or the goods are returned to the bailor-the complainant herein. In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed. It becomes crucial to determine where the legal responsibility for loss/damage lies, as often a source of contention — is the fact that they are implied rather than written. As explained by the House of Lords in the leading case of (1895) AC 632 at p. 640, the duty of a bailee to take reasonable care comprises care in two directions :
(i) The duty to take all reasonable precautions to obviate the risks which may be reasonably apprehended;
(ii) The duty to take all proper measures for the protection of the goods when such risks are imminent or had actually happened.
It is well-settled legal position thatbailees- those temporarily holding the goods, are usually held responsible for losses caused by negligence, or lack of generally expected care.
In the instant case, admittedly there is no mention of the screen damage in the customer call-cum-service report/work sheet, and he came forward to share the expenses of replacing the screen. Also, the Opposite Party admitted and supported by the third party affidavit filed by a Graduate in Computer Science and Diploma Holder in Hardware Engineering and an experienced person in computers maintenance and servicing, that the there is every possibility of the screen to crack or break during the use of laptop which has problematic hinges. Irrespective of the cause of such screen damage, the above admission of the Opposite Party clearly goes to show that the damage to the screen occurred when the laptop was left in his custody for repair and hence amounts to negligence. Further, the failure on the part of the Opposite Party, either to repair the laptop screen, free-of-cost, or replace the same or to refund the price thereof, in case, the same was beyond repairs, amounted to deficiency of service and hence liable to compensate for the loss/damage caused to the complainant and accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No.3 & 4:- In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties are hereby directed as under:-
(i) To immediately repair the laptop screen of the complainant, free of cost, by replacing the necessary part(s), if any. If the laptop is beyond repair, then the opposite parties shall refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and towards costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)&(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 29th day of November , 2019
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy of job card dated 19-06-2018
Ex.A2-copy of online complaint dated 20-6-2018
Ex.A3- copy of complaint registered mail dt.20-6-2018
Ex.A4- copy of complaint to the Consumer dt.25-6-2018
Ex.A5- copy of Speed post dated 30-6-2018
Ex.A6- copy of letter to the complainant by the opposite party dated 2-7-2018
Ex.A7- copy of the latest allotment of complaint No.828138 dated 19-6-2018
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party :
Ex.B1- customer call cum service report dt.19-6-2018
LADYMEMBER MALEMEMBER PRESIDENT
