BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 381/2021 Filed on 09/12/2021

ORDER DATED:  24/05/2022

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

    The complainant has filed this complaint, alleging that he had given his Lenovo Laptop to opposite party on 20/07/2021 for changing the keyboard & mouse pad as they were not functioning.  The laptop was in a working condition at the time of giving the laptop for changing the keyboard & mouse pad.  There was no response from the side of opposite party for one month from the date entrusting the laptop to the opposite party, after that when the complainant contacted the technician of the opposite party, the technician told him to take back the laptop as it will take time for getting the spare parts.  When the laptop was taken back to the home by the complainant’s father it is noticed that the laptop was not the one which was given for repair.  Immediately the complainant contacted the opposite party & they said that they have mistakenly given another laptop to the complainant.  The opposite party has returned complainant’s laptop after one week with its opening hinges broken & also it is seen that the laptop was in a dead condition.  The opposite party advised the complainant to change the IC chip of the laptop.  The complainant also found that the 2TB disk has been replaced by a dead 1TB disk.  The complainant counter checked & confirmed it with the Lenovo Company’s specification through their website by giving the serial number of the laptop.  The complainant pointed out this to the opposite party, but there was no response from the side of opposite party.  The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

 The notice to the opposite party was returned as ‘unclaimed’; hence opposite party was set ex-parte.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) and (ii): The complainant had filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 5 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A5.  It can be seen from Ext.A2 that the complaint has entrusted the laptop to opposite party for repairing.  It is also mentioned in Ext.A2 that the physical condition is good.  So from Ext.A2 it is clear that the laptop was given only for changing the key board and the mouse pad.  On going through Ext.A4 it is seen that the hard disk is of 2TB which is installed in complainant’s laptop.  But as per Ext.A3 it can be seen that the hard disk is of 1TB.  From Exts.A3 & A4 it can be understood that the opposite party’s have replaced the 2TB hard disk in the complainant’s laptop with a dead 1TB hard disk.  It can be seen from Ext.A5 that all these things were communicated to opposite party, for which they have not given proper explanation.  The opposite party did not turn up.  Hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant. From the documents produced by the complainant, we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving that there is unfair trade practice & deficiency in service from the side of opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs 10,000/-  (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) & pay Rs 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 24^th  day of May,  2022.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

 C.C. No. 381/2021

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT