MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 22.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1537 of 2009.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that on 29.9.2007 the complainant purchased a Laptop Computer bearing Model No.VGN-FZ15C, Serial No.7002923 for a sum of Rs.57,799/-. It was submitted that in the month of July – August, 2009, the complainant faced a problem in his laptop that while working on the laptop for about an hour especially in the Air Conditioned room, it automatically shut down or in other words it automatically switched off, so the laptop was taken to OP No.2 i.e. M/s Modern Electronics (Authorised Service Centre of Sony India) on 17.8.2009 for necessary repair. It was further submitted that at that time, OP No.2 had not given any estimate of repair and it was also told that USB slot/port of the laptop was not working. The complainant was asked to collect the laptop after 4 days as it required minor repairs. After about four days i.e. on 21.8.2009, the complainant received a telephonic call from OP No.2 regarding the estimate of repair for Rs.19,000/-. After listening the cost of repair, the complainant requested the OP No.2 to return his laptop in the same condition without any repair. On 24.8.2009, when the complainant reached the office of OP No.2, he was totally shocked to see that the laptop in totally off condition or in other words laptop could not be get switch on. The complainant refused to take the delivery of the laptop in such a condition and, thereafter, on 30.8.2009, 15.9.2009 & 16.9.2009, the complainant sent an e-mail to OPs, in response to which the OP No.2 issued estimate of Rs.21,612/- as repair charges of the laptop. It was further averred that the laptop of the complainant was well in working condition and due to the minor problems, the complainant handed over the laptop to the OPs for repair but during the repair, due to the fault of the OPs, the laptop of the complainant was badly damaged and it required Rs.21,700/- for repair of laptop. The complainant sent a legal notice on 25.9.2009 to OPs No. 1 to 3 but the same was not replied. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OP No.1 and pleaded that the laptop of the complainant has performed its function for nearly two years, thus the laptop was not suffering from any manufacturing defect. It was further pleaded that the laptop was not covered under the warranty, as the warranty period had been expired and as such, it was informed to the complainant on 17.8.2009, when the complainant approached the Authorized Service Centre of OP No.1 with the alleged complaint. The estimate cost for the repair of the laptop was intimated to the complainant with a request to give approval for the same or else collect the laptop from the Authorised Service Centre but he did nothing and therefore, the laptop of the complainant was not repaired. It was further pleaded that on inspection of the laptop, it was found that the mother-board of the laptop was required to be replaced and the cost of that part was informed to the complainant but the complainant did not turn up. It was further submitted that when the complainant brought his laptop for repairs then he was well informed about the repair charges of the laptop. It was pleaded that OP No.1 was not liable for any unauthorized acts of the OP No.2 as OP No.2 was authorized to attend to the complaints of the customer. The OP No.1 never received any legal notice dated 25.9.2009, otherwise the same would have been replied in terms of letter dated 16.9.2009, issued by Modern Electronics. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Notice was issued to the OP No.2 but OP No.2 did not appear, despite its service. Hence, the OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

5.       On behalf of OP No.3, Sh.Shekhar Verma, Advocate had appeared but OP No.3 did not file any reply or evidence. 

6.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

7.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP No.2 to pay Rs.10,806/- and return the laptop to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 2.12.2009 till the compensation is paid or laptop is returned to the complainant, whichever is later. The complaint qua OPs No. 1 and 3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 

8.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal. 

9.       In appeal, it is submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the order on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. The learned District Forum has held that the respondent No.2 is at fault and also found him in deficient in services but the learned District Forum has awarded only 50% of the damages occurred to the appellant and nothing has been awarded to the appellant for the cost of litigation, compensation for mental and physical harassment, compensation for traveling of the appellant from Sunam to Chandigarh in relation to the laptop, which is around 150 Kms. The order passed by the learned District Forum is illegal as the laptop was handed over to the respondent No.2 but respondent No.2 was proceeded against exparte. Respondents No.1 and 3 were appeared, that too after initial exparte order and later on they were proceeded against exparte. The learned District Forum has held only respondent No.2 liable, as it is the respondent No.2 to whom laptop was handed over but even then the learned District Forum has considered their contentions, which were not available on the file. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and compensation awarded by the learned District Forum may kindly be enhanced.

10.     We have heard Sh.Harish Goyal, Advocate for the appellant, Ms.Aparna Jain, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Alok Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

11.       The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is on the lesser side and no cost of litigation has been awarded. Hence, prayed that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum may kindly be enhanced.

12.       The learned proxy counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that respondent No.1 i.e. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer and respondent No.1 is not liable for any unauthorized act of the OP No.2. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal for enhancement of compensation may kindly be dismissed.

13.       The learned counsel for OP No.2 i.e. M/s Modern Electronics, who was proceeded against exparte before the learned District Forum has argued that the mother-board of the laptop was already defective and after inspection, the OP No.2 has informed the complainant about the estimate of repair and has vehemently denied the allegations leveled by the complainant regarding the further damage of the laptop. It is submitted that as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. Hence, the appeal filed for enhancement of compensation is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit.

14.     A perusal of the file shows that there is a dispute between the complainant and the OP No.2 regarding the condition of the laptop. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the laptop was not in a proper working condition and that is why the complainant handed it over to OP No.2 for repair. Regarding which, the OP No.2 has issued a job sheet dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure C-2) but the OP No.2 has not given any estimate of repair to the complainant along with the job sheet. Had the OP No.2 handed over the estimate of repair to the complainant on the same very day along with the job sheet then this dispute regarding the condition of the laptop would not have arisen at all. Keeping this fact in mind, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OP No.2 to pay half of the amount to the complainant, as OP No.2 had failed to give the estimate of repair to the complainant along with the job sheet and subsequently the laptop remained in the custody of OP No.2 and there was every possibility that the laptop could have been damaged during the period it remained with OP No.2 for repair. In this peculiar situation, even we are of the view that the OP No.2 is at fault by not giving the estimate for repair, hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. The learned District Forum while keeping in mind the principal of natural justice has rightly put the liability equally on the complainant as well as on OP No.2. Thus, the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and proper and no interference is called for.  The appeal filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

15.     In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that there is no force in the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation, thus it is dismissed with no order as to costs and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld in toto.

16.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.   

Pronounced.                                                                        

31^st March, 2011.