BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.2277/2011

DATED THIS THE 15^th JULY 2013

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -             

                                                Proof K.Venkata Rao,

                                                Aged 63 years,

                                                S/o. E.Krishnamurthy,

                                                Residing at #449, 24^th Main, 

8^th cross, HSR First Sector,

Agara, Bangalore - 02

                                                V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1.     MSR Computer,

#114/2, 2^nd floor, Vivek complex, SP Road, Bengaluru-02

Reptd by its Proprietor,

2.     Smart Tech Solutions,

#543, 24^th Main, 7^th Cross,

HSR first sector, Agara, Bengaluru-02

Reptd by its Proprietor

3.     Maha Electronics Pvt. Limited,

Authorized service centre for HP India sales Pvt. Ltd, Located at their new premises,

#777E, 100 feet road, (opp. New Horizon school), HAL- 2^nd stage,

Indira nagar, Bangalore-38,

Reptd by its Manager

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs no.1 to 3, under section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.6,58,500=00 towards deliberate negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and to pay cost of litigation, and such other relief as deemed fit.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

          The complainant is presently working as a professor in an Engineering Collage at Coimbatore. Last two years on account of his Ph.D project, he was staying at this own residence of the address given above to carry out his research work at National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore. The complainant was having a HP pavilion Laptop computer of DV 6000 model, which was gifted by daughter living abroad with advanced configuration especially suitable for doing the Ph.Dd work. The complainant maintained the computer every well and used to do all minor and periodical check up regularly with the 2^nd OP living very close to the complainant’s residence. On 17-4-2010 the complainant’s Laptop computer had the problem of overheating and occasional failure of display. So the complainant approached the 2^nd OP for rectification of the fault. The 2^nd OP upon checking the computer, reported that the computer was having a problem at its CPU, and needs a part replacement. The 2^nd OP estimated that the cost of the replacement would be Rs.4750=00. As the complainant was at the verse of completing his Ph.D work he has readily agreed to pay the sum of Rs.4750=00 towards its repair, and he requested the 2^nd OP to repair the laptop computer at the earliest and return in time. The 2^nd OP took the laptop computer to his business associate 1^st OP. After a week’s time the laptop computer was returned as having repaired by the 1^st OP. An amount of Rs.4750=00 was paid by the complainant while taking delivery of the Laptop computer from 2^nd OP. In the meantime the 2^nd OP advised to use a cooling paid as well to avoid excess heating generated by the system if any, and the complainant has agreed and purchased a cooling pad from the same 2^nd OP by paying its cost of Rs.250=00 separately. Whereas within a month’s time the laptop computer has failed with the same old problem, the 2^nd OP stated by then that the display chip of Nvideo has failed, hence needs another Rs.3750=00 for new part replacement. So in view of the urgent need of the computer, the complainant agreed to pay the cost of Rs.3750=00 for the repair. The second time 1^st and 2^nd OPs have taken more than a month’s time to repair the laptop computer. During the delivery of the computer after repair the complainant has paid Rs.3750=00 and obtained a cumulative bill of receipt for Rs.8500=00 paid totally for the two services. The 1^st and 2^nd OPs by then had given oral assurance and guarantee for six months for the laptop to work well. Contrary to the guarantee and assurances given by the 1^st and 2^nd OPs the computer failed once again within the matter of next two days. At that incident also the complainant took his computer to the 2^nd OP requested to rectify the fault immediately without any additional cost since the OPs had given the guarantee for six months. However, the OPs have taken long time to return the computer on 10-7-2011 stating that all needed repairs were done. The Laptop computer was still not working satisfactorily. So the complainant took the computer to a third party namely the HP company authorized service centre M/s. Maha Electronics Pvt. Ltd, the 3^rd OP for a thorough checkup and for repairs. To the utter surprise of the complainant, it was found at the HP service centre that the most vital part of the original mother board of the Laptop computer has been replaced with an incompatible mother board of some other inferior quality by the 1^st and 2^nd OPs. The HP service centre has however returned the laptop as the mother board for that HP pavilion DV 6000 model was not available with them for replacement. At that incident the complainant approached the 2^nd OP with the request to return the original mother board of the complainant’s HP pavilion laptop computer so as to take it and repair at the HP authorized service centre itself. But the 1^st and 2^nd OP failed to return the mother board of laptop in spite of many requests and visits by the complainant to their establishments. Finally on 17-7-2010, the complainant had to send a legal notice to both the OPs no.1 and 2 to return mother board of the computer and to pay the adequate compensation of Rs.76,000=00 for the pecuniary losses and mental agony owing to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices of the OPs. The 1^st OP made a reply to the legal notice on 26-7-2010 denying the contents of the complaint. The 2^nd OP has not made any reply to the legal notice. In the meantime the 2^nd OP has assured to the complainant that he will get back the mother board once the legal notice issued to them is withdrawn for amicable settlement. Accordingly the complainant withdrew his legal notice by a letter dated 11-8-2010 and kept cool without further agitation and insisted to return the laptop computer as well as to remove their replaced mother board and to fix with the original HP mother board, the complainant has not agreed to the proposal and kept silent for three months. In the meantime the complainant also went abroad for a visit to her daughter at USA for two months. Finally the mother board of HP laptop was returned to the complainant on his return from abroad only on Saturday 20^th Nov.2010. The complainant is ready to submit the laptop computer with its replaced mother board and the returned HP mother board at any time before the Forum. The 1^st and 2^nd OPs have deliberately made all mischievous things in repairing the complainant’s laptop computer and their services were utter disregard to their profession with ill motives. The services of the 1^st and 2^nd OPs are certainly of deficiency in nature and were full of unfair trade practices. The actions of the OPs have ultimately delayed the complainant’s prospect of completing his Ph.D work for six months. As a result the complainant underwent untold misery and mental agony for six months to complete his Ph.D. The OPs have also failed to retrieve the data from the repaired laptop for the timely completion of the Ph.D work, thus the complainant has lost six months of earnings of minimum of Rs.4,50,000=00 in addition to other direct financial loss of Rs.8500=00 incurred towards the repair charges paid to the OPs. The mental agony underwent by the complainant amounts to Rs.2.00 lakhs. The OPs no.1 and 2 are equally and jointly responsible for the losses incurred by the complainant by way of payment to repair charges of Rs.8500=00 paid to the OPs. Hence the present complaint is filed.

          3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 and 2 have appeared their counsel and filed version separately.

          4. The averments of version of the 1^st OP can be stated as under:

          The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. The 1^st OP has rendered limited service by entertaining the repair work on 12-6-2010 and on the same day, orally advised and informed the complainant in front of the 2^nd OP that there is severe problems in computer /laptop and CPU and has got high voltage problem and N Video chipset problem and other problems. So the 1^st OP had advised the complainant to approach the manufacturer or HP Company service centre. At the point of time the complainant and the OP no.2 had requested the 1^st OP to set right the problems at least on temporary basis saying that they have got urgency. Accordingly in front of the complainant and the 2^nd OP, the OPs no.1 had set right the computer/laptop and returned it on the very same day. At the time of returning the computer/laptop, it was working, after taking back the computer/laptop from the 1^st OP, the 2^nd OP and the complainant colluded each other and created story and the complainant issued a legal notice, and the 1^st OP has replied the said notice. After receipt of the reply notice, immediately the complainant came to the 1^st OP and gave a letter on 11-8-2010, wherein the complainant has withdrawn the allegations made in the notice. By plain reading of the said letter dated 11-8-2010 given by the complainant it is unconditional withdrawal of allegations made in the legal notice. After that, the complainant and the 2^nd OP might have colluded each other and might have created story for the purpose of filing the complaint, so the complaint of the complainant is baseless and it is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complainant has suppressed the fact as to from where he has purchased the laptop computer and as to why he has not produced a copy of receipt and it clearly gives a room that the complaint might have purchased the said laptop computer from the third parties. If at all the complainant had originally purchased the laptop computer from the company he could have approached the HP service centre, but why has approached the 2^nd OP. The 2^nd OP brought one laptop computer for repairs alongwith the complainant which was not in a working condition. Since there was a high voltage problem in CPU and checked the said laptop in front of the 2^nd OP who is also a computer service expert and informed him that there was a severe heating problem, the complainant alongwith 2^nd OP requested the 1^st OP to repair the laptop computer to work temporarily as there is urgency. On the request of the complainant, the 1^st OP got rectified the problems and delivered back the laptop computer through 2^nd OP. At the time of handing over the laptop, the 1^st OP had suggested the said 2^nd OP and the complainant to go to HP company service centre. With that understanding only the complainant had taken back his computer and paid the money and collected receipt from the 1^st OP. At the time of taking delivery of the laptop computer the same was working condition. After taking delivery from the 1^st OP the complainant did not report any problem in laptop computer to the 1^st OP. The 1^st OP has extended the service to the complainant promptly with care and caution and there is no negligence on the part of the 1^st OP and he has done the service with good ethics. Hence the 1^st OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. In the service will there are clear terms and conditions mentioned, as per the terms and conditions it is very clear, “the company is not responsible for report given by other service centre regarding missing or tampered items”. The said condition is very well known to the complainant. inspite of knowing very well the said conditions, the complainant has filed the false complaint. The allegations made in the complaint that the 1^st OP had kept the laptop nearly for a month and returned finally on 10-7-2010 are all false and created story by the complainant. The mother board of the lap top computer was never replaced by the 1^st OP. The 1^st OP never replaced the mother board in place of the original mother board that was in laptop computer, when the 1^st OP has not changed the mother board the question of returning the original mother board of laptop computer does not arise at all. The 1^st OP has not committed any deficiency of service and hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

          5. The averments of version of the 2^nd OP can be stated as under:

          The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant has suppressed various facts before this forum with the intention to knock out the favorable order from this forum. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is true that, the complainant has approached the 2^nd OP for checking up the laptop belonging to the complainant. Since the 2^nd OP was not having necessary equipments and skill to do the repair and accordingly the OP has honestly and sincerely suggested the complainant to taken his laptop to somebody. So this OP has suggested the 1^st OP to get the needful. Except introducing the 1^st OP the 2^nd OP has no roll to pay in the entire episode and all these things are within the knowledge of the complainant and only to harass the 2^nd OP and the complainant has made the 2^nd OP in the present proceedings. On receipt of the notice sent by the complainant the OP no.2 went to the complainant and requested the 2^nd OP and accordingly the complainant had issued a letter of withdrawal of allegation on 11-8-2010. The 2^nd OP has no way connected to the cost and bill amount of the repair of the computer and the 2^nd OP is neither the witness nor he is liable to it. The 2^nd OP has received the legal notice from the complainant and after receipt of the legal notice, the 2^nd OP approached the complainant that he has narrated all the facts stating that he has no any role to play in the entire incident and on his approach the complainant has withdrawn the legal notice issued by him and the complainant has issued a letter to that effect, so the complainant cannot maintain the complaint against the 2^nd OP. The 2^nd OP has never contacted the complainant and has not made any suggestions with regard to the maintenance of the laptop as stated in the complaint. The 2^nd OP is in no way responsible for any loss if really sustained by the complainant. There is no willful negligence on the part of the OP no.2 nor any deficiency of service and the 2^nd OP has not at all received the instrument for the service and he has only suggested the name of the 1^st OP, and except the above the 2^nd OP has no way involved in the present incident. The amount claimed in the said complaint is highly exorbitant, illegal, capricious and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

6. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs no.1 and 2, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                           Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs no.1 and 2 are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2?

2.                           If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                           What order?

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Affirmative  

Point no.2:  The complainant is entitled to refund

Rs.8,500=00. The OP no.1 is directed to refund the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP no.1 shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 7% interest p.a. on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization. The OPs no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000=00 and Rs.1,500=00 to the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation respectively within 30 days from the date of this order.

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          8. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced documents which were marked as annexure-A1 to A5 and produced one Xerox copy of letter dated 12-9-2010 and Visa copy of complainant and his wife. On the other hand, one Anil who being the proprietor of the 1^st OP has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and one Suhel Akther who being the proprietor of the 2^nd OP has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and no documents produced on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd OPs. We have heard the arguments of both parties, and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.   

9. One Prof. K.Venkata Rao who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he is presently working as a professor and HOD in the department of Aeronautics at Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineer Engineering Collage at Coimbatore, since August 2011. He has pursuing Ph.D research work at National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore during the year 2010-2011. During the period he had some maintenance issue with the HP pavilion DV 6000 model laptop computer. This computer with certain advance configuration was purchased at USA by his daughter V.Hemalatha and donated just two years before for his research work. On 17-4-2010 the said computer had some overheating and occasional failure of display problem. So he approached the 2^nd OP for rectification of the fault and the 2^nd OP took laptop computer to the 1^st OP for repair, and he got back his laptop computer from the 2^nd OP after a week by paying the amount of Rs.4750=00 towards the first repair and the cost of a cool paid supplied by the OPs. He is not aware the amount of commission the 2^nd OP has got from the 1^st OP for his service in this connection. Annexure-A1 is the document of payment of two services made to his laptop computer and he got with the 2^nd OP to the service centre of the 1^st OP on 12-6-2010 to take delivery of the computer and got the cumulative service bills from the 1^st OP, had promised and given assurance for six months of free service to the laptop and he has made one more visits on 14-6-2010 to the 1^st OP to deliver the laptop computer to attend to the recurring faults. Inspite of repeated visits and follow up the laptop was not repaired and it was finally returned on 10-7-2010 as everything was done. During that one month period only many vital parts of his laptop computer including the mother board were replaced with some substandard parts and assembly. When the facts of replacement of mother board of the laptop was detected by the complainant with the help of HP authorized service centre M/s. Maha Electronics, the 1^st OP took the stand and stated that as per the condition no.8 of the service bill   “The company is not responsible for report given by other service center regarding missing and tampered items”. The condition stipulated at the back of the service bill of the 1^st OP is not proof of malafide intention and unprincipled and unfair trade practices. He has sent a legal notice to the OPs on 17-7-2010 to get back the original mother board of the laptop, but the 1^st OP has refused to return the original mother board of the computer and negotiating through the 2^nd OP with him to withdraw the legal notice and to return the substandard mother board fitted in his computer so as to return the original HP mother board. Accordingly he made withdrawal letter on 11-8-2010 to enable the OP to return the original mother board of the laptop computer, but the OPs have not returned the mother board of the laptop before the complainant proceeds to USA in the month of Sept. 2010, and his long planned visit to USA was delayed solely due to the tussle with the OPs. Finally the original HP mother board of his laptop was returned to him on 20-11-2010 after return from abroad. Due to mistake of the OP, he has lost one more opportunity to repair the laptop at the place of purchase at USA. He is having his laptop fitted with the 1^st OP’s substandard mother board, he may be allowed to produce before the forum, the said mother board supplied by OP. He had to purchase a new computer in January 2011 to complete his Ph.D research work and to submit his final thesis in July 2011. The OPs no.1 and 2 are equally and jointly responsible for the losses incurred by the complainant to the tune of Rs.6,58,000=00 towards loss of computer, loss of time, loss of remuneration at his profession and loss of mental peace due to negligence and deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and deliberate physical and mental harassment to him. So he prayed to allow the complaint and pass an order as prayed for.

10. The complainant has produced one material receipt note dated 22-8-2010 issued by the 1^st OP in the name of 2^nd OP for having received laptop computer for attending the repair. The service bill dated 12-6-2010 issued by the 1^st OP produced by the complainant show that, the said service bill was issued by the 1^st OP in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs.8,500=00 for attending the chip and high voltage problem of laptop computer of the complainant. Annexure-A2 is the copy of service call report issued by the 3^rd OP in the name of complainant and that report is not clear visible. Annexure-A3 is the copy of legal notice of the complainant issued to OPs no.1 and 2 calling upon them to pay compensation of Rs.76,000=00 as compensation, failing which, necessary civil and criminal proceeding will be initiated alongwith cost of legal notice. Annexure-A4 is the copy of reply given by the 1^st OP to the notice of complainant denying the allegation of notice and OP no.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st OP and called upon the complainant to withdraw the notice otherwise he will resist his acts through court of law. Annexure-A5 is the copy of letter of complainant dated 11-8-2010 addressed to the OPs no.1 and 2 withdrawing the allegation made in the notice, it was issued on 17-7-2012. Annexure-A6 is the copy of appointment order of the complainant issued by Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology dated 18-8-2011, appointing him as professor and HOD of Aeronautical Engineering in Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, on the basis of total salary of Rs.75,000=00. Anneuxre-A7 is the copy of information in respect of HP laptop computer of the complainant between Ramesh Krishnan and Austin Vega and number for the mother board was 443776-001. Annexure-A8 consists of Visa copy of complainant and his wife, and expiry date of Visa of complainant was 23-6-2011 and expiry date of Visa of complainant’s wife was 3-6-2020. Annexure-A9 is the copy of invoice issued by Techsync Solutions Inc dated 8-1-2011 in the name of complainant for having purchased a new Acer laptop 5742 for Rs.37,000=00.

11. By a careful reading of the complaint and evidence of the complainant as mentioned above, it is made clear that, the complainant has paid Rs.8,500=00 to the 1^st OP for making repairs of his laptop computer, as the said laptop computer was overheating and failure of display problem and laptop computer was handed over to the 1^st OP through 2^nd OP for attending the fault. As per the evidence of complainant, the laptop computer was not repaired, but finally returned to him on 10-7-2011 as everything was done, during that one month period only vital parts of his laptop computer including the mother board was replaced with some substandard parts and assembly. The fact of replacement of mother board of the laptop computer was detected by the complainant with the help of the 3^rd OP. In order to show that, the mother board of laptop computer was replaced, the complainant has produced service call report of the 3^rd OP at annexure-A2. By a careful reading of annexure-A2 issued by the 3^rd OP wherein it is not stated specifically that, the mother board of the complainant was replaced with inferior quality. As per the condition no.8 of the 1^st OP printed on the back page of material receipt note and service bill produced by the complainant at annexue-A1, it is made manifest that, the company is not responsible for report given by other service centre regarding missing and tampered items. When once the complainant has given laptop computer to the 1^st OP to attend the some of the problems agreeing to terms and conditions of receipt note and service bill of OP no.1, it is duty of the complainant to act accordingly, and instead of doing so, the complainant has opted the service of OP no.3 and got repaired contrary to the terms and conditions of the 1^st OP. The report of OP no.3 produced at Annexure-A2 by complainant does not show clearly that the 1^st OP has replaced the original mother board from the laptop computer of complainant and fitted the inferior mother board quality etc.

12. The oral evidence of the complainant that, the OPs no.1 and 2 have replaced the original mother board of his laptop computer and other vital parts is not supported by believable documentary evidence, but oral and documentary evidence of the complainant go to reveal that, after giving the laptop computer to the 1^st OP through 2^nd OP by charging Rs.8,500=00, the said laptop computer was not properly repaired and HP laptop computer of the complainant is not working as before from the date, it was given to the OPs no.1 and 2 for repairs. On account of not solving the problem of HP laptop computer, the complainant was made to suffer. Subsequently, he has purchased another laptop computer by spending Rs.37,000=00 on 8-1-2011. The service rendered by the OPs no.1 and 2 after collecting the service charge of Rs.8,500=00 from the complainant to correct the mistake in the laptop computer is not satisfactory, and accordingly, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs no.1 and 2 on 17-7-2010 making allegations against the OPs no.1 and 2 and subsequently on 11-8-2010, the complainant has sent letter to the OPs no.1 and 2 withdrawing the allegation made in the said legal notice, for the reasons best known to the complainant. Further in the legal notice dated 17-7-2010 the complainant has sought compensation of Rs.76,000=00 from the OPs no.1 and 2, but in the present complaint, the complainant has prayed compensation of Rs.6,58,500=00. The compensation as prayed in the legal notice dated 17-7-2010 and compensation sought in the prayer column of the complaint are having no consistently and amity. The complainant has sought in the complaint and also during his evidence that, he has lost six months earning of minimum Rs.4,50,000=00. But unfortunately, no scrape of paper is produced to demonstrate before the forum that, the act of the OPs no.1 and 2 has resulted in to loss of six months of earning. It is an admitted fact that complainant is working as professor and HOD of Aeronautics Department in Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore and he has been paid salary during that period without any break. When such being position it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that, he has lost six months of earning of minimum of Rs.4,50,000=00. Besides, whatever compensation of Rs.2,00,000=00 prayed in the evidence of complainant appears to be exorbitant and excessive and there is no basis for computing such imaginary compensation. So from the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, we hold that, the OPs no.1 and 2 are negligent and there is deficiency of service on their part in not rectifying the mistake of HP laptop computer of the complainant after collecting charges of Rs.8,500=00, but we do not find any negligence as such on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2 with regard to replacement of mother board of laptop computer of the complainant as contended in the complaint.

13. At this stage, it is relevant to have a cursory glance at the material evidence of the OPs no.1 and 2. One Anil, who being the proprietor of OP no.1 has stated in his affidavit that, he has rendered limited service by entertaining the repair work on 12-6-2010 and on the same day, he orally advised and informed the complainant in front of the 2^nd OP that there is severe problems in laptop computer and to approach the manufacturer or HP Company service centre. At the point of time the complainant and the OP no.2 had requested him to set right the problems at least on temporary basis saying that they have got urgency, and accordingly he had set right the computer/laptop and returned the same, it was working, after taking back the computer/laptop from him, the 2^nd OP and the complainant colluded each other and created story and the complainant got issued a legal notice, and he has replied the said notice. After receipt of the reply notice, immediately the complainant came to the 1^st OP and gave a letter on 11-8-2010 withdrawing the allegations of the notice. The complainant has suppressed the fact when he has purchased the laptop computer and he has not produced bill or receipt for having purchased laptop computer, and he has extended the service to the complainant promptly with care and caution and there is no negligence on his part and he has done the service with good ethics, and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. In the service will there are clear terms and conditions mentioned, and as per the conditions no.8 “the company is not responsible for report given by other service centre regarding missing or tampered items”. The complainant is very much aware of the said condition and inspite of it, the complainant has filed false complaint, he has not replaced the mother board as stated by the complainant and he has not committed any negligence or deficiency of service, so the complaint be dismissed.

14. One Suhel Akther who being the proprietor of OP no.2 has stated in his affidavit that, since the complainant requested him to accompany him to the 1^st OP respecting the age of the complainant and his education, he took the complainant to the 1^st OP and got introduced him to the 1^st OP. Except introducing him he had no roll to play in the entire episode and whatever had happened, he is not at all liable and he has not received even a single paise from the complainant or the 1^st OP. After service of legal notice, he went to the complainant and requested him to withdraw legal notice and accordingly the complainant has withdrawn the notice on 11-8-2010, he is in no away connected to the cost and bill amount of the repair of the computer and there is no negligence or deficiency of service on his part and he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant towards compensation, so the complaint be dismissed.

15. By making careful scrutiny of the material evidence of the OPs, it is no doubt true that, the OPs no.1 and 2 have not placed any documentary evidence in support of their evidence, but the contention of the 1^st and 2^nd OPs that, after receipt of the notice of complainant, the complainant has withdrawn the allegations of notice by sending a letter dated 11-8-2010 is fortified by letter of complainant produced at annexure-A5 by the complainant himself. That apart as per the material receipt note and service bill produced by the complainant at annexure-A1, it is made clear that, an amount of Rs.8,500=00 was received by the 1^st OP only and not by the 2^nd OP and these two receipts were signed and issued by the 1^st OP, but the 2^nd OP has acted as middle man between the complainant and 1^st OP, this OP no.2 has introduced the 1^st OP to complainant and made the complainant to pay charges of Rs.8,500=00 to the 1^st OP and also laptop computer for repair. In this regard, the material receipt note produced at annexure-A1 of the complainant is enough to hold that, the 2^nd OP acted as middle man since that receipt was issued in the name of 2^nd OP. Since, the testimonies of the OPs no.1 and 2 are not corroborated by documentary evidence their evidence cannot be taken as gospel truth.

16. By making careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is made clear that, the complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has proved with clear cogent and consistent material evidence that, the OPs no.1 and 2 are negligent and there is deficiency of service on their part in not making proper repair of HP laptop computer, after collecting the service charges of Rs.8,500=00 and made him to suffer and to purchase another laptop computer to complete his research work of Ph.D course, and accordingly, we answer this point in a affirmative.

          17. In view of our affirmative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is entitled to claim of Rs.8,500=00 only from the 1^st OP as the problem of laptop computer has not been solved properly, after collecting the service charges and issuing receipt. So far as, the replacement of the mother board from the laptop computer is concerned, the complainant has miserably failed to prove with tangible material evidence that the 1^st OP has replaced the mother board negligently or with a malafide intention. That apart the complainant has prayed in the complaint, the loss of six months earning approximately Rs.4,50,000=00. But no iota of documentary evidence is produced to show before the forum that, the complainant has lost six months earning approximately Rs.4,50,000=00. On the contrary the complainant has received salary as Professor and HOD of Aeronautics in the Engineering college by name Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology and there is no loss of salary even single month. So no question of asking compensation under the head of loss of earning for six months. But The 1^st OP is liable to refund Rs.8,500=00 being the service charges collected from the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the 1^st OP shall pay the said amount to complainant alongwith 7% interest p.a. on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization. Since, the act of the 1^st and 2^nd OPs has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant, so both OPs no.1 and 2 are saddled with the responsibility of paying a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000=00 and to pay Rs.1,500=00 towards cost of litigation jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of this order, and accordingly, we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

                                              ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OP no.1 is directed to refund Rs.8,500=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the OP no.1 shall pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith 7% interest on the said amount from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

          It is further ordered that, the OPs no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000=00 and Rs.1,500=00 to the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation respectively within 30 days from the date of this order.

          The complaint of the complainant filed against the OP no.3 is hereby dismissed.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 15^th day of July 2013).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT