The fact of the case is that the complainant has given the Laptop to the opposite party for repairing the said Laptop with screen jumping . The complainant was told only service charge of Rs.300/- for detection of the problem. The Service Engineer, Opposite party told complainant to pay Rs.4200/- or Rs.6200/- for two problems. On 8.9.2014 the Service Engineer repaired and delivered the same to the complainant. The complainant went to the shop of the oP and made payment of Rs.6200/- and took back the old screen of the Laptop. Again on 9.9.2004 the complainant went to the Service Engineer and the Service Engineer kept that Laptop to another person. Same day that person who has repaired the Laptop to keep the
Laptop in his house for problem. The complainant then told the office of the oP that on two occasion they are failed to repair the said Laptop so he wanted to get return back the said Laptop and money. But the Op refused to do the same. The Op failed to provide service to the complainant. The complainant did not get the service from the Op, hence the case.
The Opposite party has contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all the material allegations of the complainant it is stated that after a week the Service Engineer of the Op called the complainant and told him that the problem was of screen of said Laptop and the complainant had two options of selecting screen type i.e. one is out of warranty which cost Rs.4200/- another comes with warranty of three months which is cost Rs.6200/- . Those facts of complainant is totally misconceived. The Opposite party on several occasions invited the complainant to take the money but without receiving the same the complainant without coming , the complainant has filed the case falsely stating that the Opposite party denied to return the money. That the op is not the manufacturer of the product and has only sold the same and thus cannot responsible for the deficiency in service. The petitioner has himself caused damaged to the screen and has put the responsibility upon the oP for its mal functioning , hence the case should be dismissed with cost.
Both sides have filed Evidence in chief and some Xerox copy of documents dated 4.5.2009.
The complainant did not file any document of purchase of the Laptop.
POINT FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It appears that the alleged computer was purchased on 4.5.2009 and another Xerox copy of Shibam Computer dated 25.8.2014 shows that Rs.6200/- was charged signed by Engineer. In the evidence in chief the complainant has stated again and again that the Engineer kept the Laptop and Engineer was responsible for not providing service. Again Op Shivam stated that , that Engineer has not been appointed by the Shivam Computers. It is also furher argued that taking the advantage of ignorance of the complainant regarding the hardware problems of the laptop, the op has caused unfair trade practice by unnecessary changing the screen of the laptop. Although the complainant made his complete reliance upon the oP, but the oP in return caused mental agony, anxiety and harassment to the complainant. The Op in para no.7 of the written version he has stated that that “.. the opposite party on several occasions invited the petitioner to take back the money…” but no such averments were ever been made by the oP in his reply letter and since filing of the complaint till this day the oP never tried to substantiate the claim of the complainant as such the defence taken by the oP has no leg to stand. Insptie of the order no.9 dated 30.10.2015 the oP did not file the cost of Rs.1000/- imposed by the ld. Forum and did not turned up for contesting the case. From the above facts
and circumstances it is crystal clear that the Op has caused illegal trade practice and also made deficiency in rendering service to the petitioner/complainant and as such the op is liable to pay the compensation and other as prayed for.
But the above arguments cannot be accepted in absence of any documents purchased and opinion of an expert . The alleged Engineer , so far the record is concerned is not connected with the Op . There is no incriminating materials against the OP/Shivam . The complainant also has tangled the Engineer with another person as reflected in the version of complainant. Accordingly, it cannot be accepted that Op acted with negligency or there was no part of negligent of OP . With the above short reasoning we dispose of the case holding that the case is liable to be dismissed. Hence -
Ordered
That the CC no.266 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
