CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.16/2013

SH. SAMRAT VERMA

S/O SH. DHAN PRAKASH VERMA

R/O 6040/8 SECTOR-D, POCKET-6,

VASANT KUNJ,

NEW DELHI-110070

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                    VS.

M/S TOSHIBA SERVICE CENTRE

G-4, 5, 6 CHANDRA BHAWAN,

NEAR ICICI BANK,

NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order: 04.07.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

We have heard the complainant and carefully perused the record.

The case of the complainant is that he submitted his laptop to OP for repair on 30.10.2012.  The inspection charges were Rs.700/- irrespective of the fact whether complainant got the laptop repaired or no.  Complainant agreed to it.  Complainant left his laptop at the service center of OP on 30.10.2012.  After two-three days, complainant received a call from OP whereby it was informed that there is a problem in laptop’s motherboard and the cost of repair of the same will be Rs.5,056/- which was agreed to between the parties.  Complainant after repair collected his laptop on 01.12.2012 after making full payment.  The service centre provided with one year warrantee from 01.12.2012 to 31.12.2012.  The laptop developed problem after its repair.  The same was initially ignored by the complainant but later on when the problem frequently persisted, complainant contacted the service centre on 10.12.2012 and as desired by OP, the laptop was taken to them on 15.12.2012.  It was informed after two-three days that there is problem with hard disk of the laptop and the same has to be changed which will cost Rs.4500/- plus service tax.

It is stated by the complainant that OP should have pointed about the non-functioning of the hard disk at the time of inspection of laptop in October 2012 and had they informed, he would have not got the laptop repaired with the cost of Rs.10,000/-.  It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to fully repair the laptop or else refund Rs.5056/- and return the laptop and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.

Appearance was put on 20.02.2013 on behalf of OP.  Thereafter nobody appeared on behalf of OP.  Ultimately OP was proceed ex parte on 08.08.2013.

Complainant filed ex parte evidence by way of affidavit.  Complainant has proved on record that the laptop was taken to OP for repair and the motherboard of the laptop was changed and for that complainant paid Rs.5,056/-.  However, the laptop again developed problem and was taken again to OP on 15.12.2012 and OP informed that the hard disk is to be replaced.  Complainant is right in saying that it should have been pointed out in October 2012 when the laptop was taken by complainant that apart from motherboard there is problem in the Hard DISC also.  At that time OP has not pointed any defect in the hard disk.  Definitely the complainant would not have agreed to spend Rs.10,000/- on old laptop – had it been brought to his notice.  It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is bound to refund the amount of Rs.5,056/- alongwith 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of complaint plus Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

             (D.R. TAMTA)                                                         (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT