Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/520/2014

M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Poswal - Opp.Party(s)

G.K.Bhartiya

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 520 /2014

 

M/s. Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office at A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,New Delhi through its authorised signatory

 

Vs.

 

Rahul Poswal r/o outside Delhi Gate, Near Kilali Kuan, Alwar, Rajasthan & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 28.10.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs.Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Shailendra Chhabra counsel for the appellant

Mr.Vipul Jain counsel for respondent no.1

None present for respondents no. 2 & 3

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 11.4.2014 of the District Consumer Forum, Alwar by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that they are not liable for any deficiency in service. Only for ten days his laptop was in their custody and no scratches has been caused to the laptop in their custody inspite of this they have been penalised. Further the contention of the appellant is that for the sake of argument it can be accepted that the appellants are negligent and in their custody scratches has been occasioned to the laptop, the screen of the laptop could be changed and the court below has wrongly ordered for the change of laptop or to pay the cost of the laptop.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that in job sheet when the laptop was deposited with the appellant, there was no mention that there are any scratches on the laptop which clearly shows that the scratches has been occasioned only in the custody of the appellant and they were liable for the deficiency

of service and the court below has rightly ordered for replacement of the laptop or cost of the laptop.

3

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the

impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

The case is mainly based on job sheet in which there is no mention that any scratches were found on the laptop which clearly shows that scratches were caused to the laptop when it was in the custody of the appellant and it clearly spells out the deficiency of service of the appellant. Further more before the court below no alternative has been suggested by the appellant. When scratches has been caused to the laptop there was no alternate except to replace it or to pay the money equivalent to the cost of the laptop. Hence, the court below has rightly ordered so and there is no infirmity and perversity in the order. It is very unfortunate that the company like Soni India Pvt. Ltd. is pursuing the matter in appeal inspite of their clear deficiency in service.

 

In the light of above there is no merit in the above appeal and liable to be dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm