O R D E R A. Rajesh, President. The complainant is the pride owner of IBM PIII 700 lap top bearing serial No. 97-579 BS 10100. On 2-5-06 he entrusted the machine with the opposite party for repairs at his Palaghat office. The opposite party issued receipt to that effect. Thereafter as per the request of the opposite party, the complainant paid the repairing charge of Rs. 7,500/- through his Bank. However the opposite party failed to return the gadget after its repairs. Hence the opposite party directly went to the Palakkad Office to fund that it was closed. Later the complainant searched out the opposite partys present office at Kochi. In spite of repeated demands, the opposite party has not returned the machine together with Rs. 7,500/- which he received by way of repairing charge. The complainant approached this Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to return the lap top or in the alternative to pay Rs. 40,000 being the price, and also to refund the repairing charge of Rs. 7,500/-, compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and cost of this proceedings. 2. Opposite partys version is as follows: Opposite party admitted the entrustment of lap top and receipt of repairing charge. The opposite party submits that upon receipt of payment the machine was properly repaired and ready for delivery. But complainant did not turned up to collect the machine. Subsequently the opposite party shifted his office to Kochi and advertisement was published in various news papers about the functioning of office. The opposite party alleges that on 15-9-07 the complainant approached him to collect the machine. However on account of idling the machine, it required additional charges to make it rewok. In the meantime the opposite party offered a second hand machine at a total price of Rs. 8, 500/- and agreed to adjust Rs. 5,000/- from out of the advance besides Rs. 1,500/- on the dead machine. By rejecting the offer the complainant approached to this Forum. The opposite party clarifies that he is ready and willing to hand over the machine and also prepared to return Rs. 7,500/- received from the complainant for the sake of settlement. The opposite party asserts that he is liable to pay neither the price of the lap top in question nor the repairing charge and the compensation as averred by complainant. Finally opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint with the cost. 3. Though proof affidavit was filed by the complainant, he was not cross examined by the opposite party. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked from the side of complainant. After closing the evidence counsel for the complainant was heard. 4. Points to be considering by us. i. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the lap top or its price from the opposite party or not ? ii.Whether the opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 7,500/- which he has received by way of repairing charges.? iii. Compensation and cost. Point Nos. i and ii. Admittedly the lap top in question was received by the opposite party on 2-5-2006 for repairs and opposite party has received a sum of Rs. 7,500/ as repairing charge on 14-7-06. The complainant has been examined as PW1 and he has not been cross examined by the opposite party. The evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The complainant has every right to get the defects removed m the opposite party so as to make it functional and trouble free. For that purpose the opposite party has received a sum of Rs. 7,500/- from the complainant. Till date since 2-5-2006, the lap top has been lying unused in the premises of the opposite party and complainant is deprived of the benefits out of the machine. Inordinate delay has occurred for the return of the gadget on working condition by the opposite party since he has received the service charge from the complainant or else he is bund to return the price of the gadget to the complainant in case it is lost from his possession. Though the complainant avered that the price of the tap top is 40,000/- nothing is there on records to show the same. Hence we fix the price of the lap top as Rs. 20,000/- which appears to us to be a reasonable figure, taking into account the value of depreciation Point No. iii. The complainant has entrusted his valuable machine to the opposite party for repairs. He has incurred Rs. 7,500/- as repairing charges. Already more than 2 years delay has occurred in taking action in this issue. Normally the complainant has undergone much mental pain and suffering during this period. Hence the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony and cost of this proceedings. We are allowing this complaint and direct that i. the opposite party shall return the lap top to the complainant in working condition or in the alternative opposite party shall pay Rs. 20,000/- by way of its price to the complainant. ii. the opposite party shall refund Rs. 7,500/- to the complainant, which he has received by way of repairing charges. The opposite party shall not refund the amount if he returns the lap top in working condition. iii. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony. iv. the opposite party shall pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant as litigation costs. The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of July 2008.
