DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.107/2018
Mr. Tarun Kumar
R/o A-68, Shivalik
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
Ms. Rhea Kumar
R/ o A-68, Shivalik
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017. …Complainants
VERSUS
M/s V.S. Enterprises
Shop No.3, E-8/12
Main Road, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
Mr. Tarun Vij
Shop No.3, E-8/12
Main Road, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution : 06.04.2018
Date of Order : 26.09.2022
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
The complainant has prayed for directing the M/s V.S. Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as OP) (a) to refund the amount of Rs.54,600/-; (b) to award a sum of Rs.65,700/- being case of laptop retained by OP; (c) to award Rs. 2 Lac for use of laptop and for causing mental harassment etc; (d) to award a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards litigation cost etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainants had purchased two laptops of the brand “Apple” one for complainant No. 1 and another one for his daughter- Rhea Kumar. They were looking for an authorised service centre for the maintenance/ repair of these laptops. It is told about the OP-1 who claims to be authorised service centre of “Apple” was handed over two laptops for repair on 20.07.2016. The OPs on 16.08.2016 stated that both the laptops were successfully and satisfactorily repaired and accordingly the OPs billed the complainant on amount of Rs.54,600/-. It was informed by the OP that the repair/maintenance work had a warranty of 2 years. The complainant, believing the statement of OP, paid the total bill of Rs.54,600/- vide cheque No.000596 for Rs.30,000/- dated 16.09.2017 and cheque 000597 for Rs.24,600/- dated 24.9.2017. These cheques were accepted and encashed. It was noticed that both the laptops were not working at all and no repair/work seems to have not been carried out by the OPs. On assurance, the complainant again handed over the laptops to the OPs. On 2nd repair the laptops were still not working. Many times, laptops were given but no repair was done satisfactorily. The OPs repeatedly misled and cheated the complainant. It was alleged that the OP retained one laptop pertaining to his daughter. Despite many visits, no resolution was arrived at. The complainant ultimately got issued legal notice upon the OPs.
OP, on the other hand, at the outset, stated that they are not authorised dealer for service/repair of Apple brand laptops. Since, the authorised dealers are charging high charges, so, the complainant visited the shop of the OP. The complainant, after checking the laptop, agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 54,600/-. Accepting the offer, they delivered the laptops for repair. It is also argued that both the laptops were very old model of 2012 for which availability of spare parts was very difficult. The spare parts of these laptops such as motherboard, hard drive etc. were arranged from the grey market and complainant also knew this fact. It was explained to the complainant that there cannot be any guarantee of such spare parts of old Model as the company stopped making the spare parts. These machines were handed over in August, 2016 and bill was given in September meaning thereby, it was averred by the OP that these laptops were working satisfactorily. After some time, it was noticed that the problem was due to “Tough Pad and Battery Replacement”. The Complainant agreed to pay Rs.11,600/- for the above work in April 2017. It was vehemently denied by the OP that no guarantee of two years was extended to the complainants. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It was specifically clarified that the work of Touch Pad & Battery Replacement were not part of the earlier work.
Both the parties filed written submissions and evidence-in-affidavits. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the entire gamut of issues and oral arguments were also given serious thought. It was noticed from, the averments that the OPs were not authorised service centre of the Apple Brand. OP might be engaged in providing the repair work to all kinds of laptops. It is evident from the bill No.3046 dated 16.8.2016 issued to West Coast landbase Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.54,600/- that the OPs are not authorised service Centre for Apple Brand. Hence, it was the complainant’s decision to get the laptops repaired from the OPs. There may be some truth in the averments of the OPs that the company i.e. APPLE, must not be producing/supplying in spare parts for the model of 2012 laptops at this particular time. Hence, it is quite possible that the spare parts so mentioned above might have been arranged from the grey market as maintained by OP. It is understandable that these spare parts might not be giving the desired outcome. The complainant had also a grievance of not returning the machine i.e. laptop by the OP. There is possibility of fact that the complainant may not be providing the bill amount for the subsequent repair for Rs.11,600/-. It was found that the OP consistently maintained that the subsequent repair regarding Touch Pad Repair & Battery Replacement was not part of earlier work. It come out from the averments that the complainant did not agree to pay the subsequent bill of Rs.11,600/- and one of the laptop might have been retained by the OP for reversing the payment of 2nd bill. It is noticed that the complainant had not mentioned about the work of “Touch Pad Repair and Battery Replacement” in its complaint or anywhere else. So, it is not understood why all facts were not spelt out in its averments so made either oral or in writing.
Further, it is also noticed that the bill of Rs.54,600/- was raised in the name of West Coast Land base Pvt. Ltd. It is also noted that cheques for payments of Rs.54,600/- (30,000+24,600)was found issued by West Coast Land Base Pvt. Ltd. The complainants have enclosed the invoice for the purchase of one laptop for Rs. 65,700/- in the name of Rhea Kumar.
The complainants have not revealed their relationship with the West Coast Land Base Pvt. Ltd. Since the machine was got purchased in the name of Rhea Kumar and then why the repair bill was made in the name of West Coast Land Base Pvt. Ltd. In all, it seems that the complainants have not come before this Commission with clean hands.
In nutshell, having considered the material before us, this Commission is of the considered opinion that no case is made out in favour of the complainants. Hence the request of the complainants are rejected in entirety.
No order as to the costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
