Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 706.
Instituted on : 14.12.2017.
Decided on : 04.12.2019.
Ms. Tanya, aged about 30 years, daughter of Shri Ramesh Lal Ghandhi, resident of H. No.92-L, Model Town, Rohtak-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Hitesh, Partner, M/s Computer Planet, Shop No.3, Improvement Trust Market, Near AppuGhar, Rohtak.
- Vickey, Partner, M/s Computer Planet, Shop no.3, Improvement Trust Market, Near Appu Ghar, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri S.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that she had purchased one laptop mark Sony bearing Model name VPCEH25EN/W 1N5 having Serial No.7023809 from the opposite parties for Rs.28,500/- with one year warranty. It is averred that the said laptop had been creating problems from the very beginning, during the period of warranty. During the last week of December, 2012, the said laptop stopped taking charging and complainant had taken the same to the shop of the respondents and the same was returned to the complainant within 5 minutes after repair. But on 15.1.2013, the said laptop again stopped taking charging and ultimately it was again taken to the shop of the respondent but this time they demanded Rs.1,200/- as repairing charges saying that the warranty period had expired. Complainant deposited the alleged fees and the laptop was returned in a packed condition after repair. But after using the same, it was found that the laptop was in same condition so she again deposited the laptop with the respondent no.2 for repair. Thereafter, the complainant and her father have been repeatedly requesting the respondents to return the laptop in working condition but all in vain. It is also averred that on 11.4.2016, the father of the complainant had filed a complaint against the respondents about the same grievance but the same was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 5.5.2017 with liberty to file afresh in the name of the present complainant. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to get the costs of the Laptop alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum till its realization, to pay Rs.12,000/- as counsel fee and Rs.50,000/- on account of inconvenience and harassment etc. to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant had purchased a Sony Laptop bearing model Name VPCEH25EN/W 1N5 Serial No.7023809 on 9.1.2012 with one year warranty only and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by company and it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty. It is also submitted after using the laptop for one year, the complaints regarding the alleged defects in Laptop were made, whereas no job sheet/proof has been placed by the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite parties no.2 also filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party no.2 was just an employee not the partner and working there at opposite party no.1 and has also reiterated the version taken by the opposite party no.1 in its reply. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/G and closed his evidence on 1.2.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no. 1 & 2 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and has closed his evidence on 08.03.2019.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the father of complainant has earlier filed a complaint on 11.04.2016 whereas the cause of action had lastly arisen in January 2013. Hence the complaint was filed by the father of the complainant after a gap of 3 years. Hence the complaint is time barred. Moreover, in the present complaint the grievance of the complainant is that the laptop in question was deposited by her with the opposite party in the last week of January, 2013 and the same has not been returned by the opposite parties till date. On the other hand, this fact has not been admitted by the opposite parties anywhere that the laptop in question is in their possession and the same has been denied by the opposite parties in their reply. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2103 of 2018 decided on 26.09.2018 titled as Ram Kunwar Vs. Jai Durga Tractror and has submitted that complainant has not placed on record any job sheet/proof to prove that the laptop in question is with the respondents. We have also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in 2014(1)CLT 481 titled as M/s Heights Trade(P) Ltd. Vs. UCO Bank, whereby Hon’ble National Commission has also held that : “Intricate and complicated questions involved in the case-it would be difficult to decide the case on mere documents-The evidence of experts and record have to be looked into-These questions must be discussed by an appropriate forum or civil court-The Consumer Commission must refrain from arrogating those powers which it does not possess”.
8. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the firm opinion that the present matter contains involvement of disputed complicated questions of facts and law and voluminous evidence is required to decide the matter and as such cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. The complainant is at his own liberty to seek any other appropriate remedy at the appropriate Courts of law, if so desired or advised.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2019.
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
