BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^th DAY OF JULY 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to OP to look into the matter to take necessary steps to compensate the complainant for the damages caused by their employee, direction to OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service, damage caused and agony and such other relief.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant had booked a repair services for Laptop which has white lines on screen from OP, who is a service provider in the name of Urban company, Bangalore. For the service of Laptop was scheduled on 20.10.2022, the same was notified on the same day. OP referred the matter to the technician of his company, attained the repair service of Laptop screen issue. Complainant stated that instead of repairing the issue existed in the Laptop, technician was incompetent to attend the repair, he still made it worse and made it non-working condition. The OP promises to resolve the issue on 10.11.2022. There was no response from OP after that. On 19.11.2022 OP denies the damage caused by their employee and closed the issue raised by the complainant.

3. OP technician attended the repair service on 20.10.2022, on the same date complainant has raised the other complaint with OP stating that its technician damaged the Laptop while repairing it. In pursuance to the complaint of the complainant about the technician’s incompetency and caused still more complications in the Laptop. OP agreed to send another technician for rectification of the issue. Subsequently Op denied to send technician and offered only a coupon of Rs.500/- to the complainant. With no choice complainant approached authorized Acer service centre for the rectification, they diagnosed that the mother board is damaged and could not be repaired and also quoted the approximate amount of Rs.70,000/- of replacement of mother board. With regard to the same consumer complaint was filed on 05.11.2022, customers support executive of OP conducted complaint on 10.11.2022 with promise on resolving the issue, there was no response afterwards. On 19.11.2022 OP has deemed the issue to be resolved without any investigation. The technician of OP company claims that he did not caused any damage to the Laptop. Complainant observed that and also taken photo as an evidence of service tools and not working Laptop since it stopped working after dis-assembled during the diagnosis. Hence complainant approached this commission for the relief due to deficiency of service caused by OP and compensation for the damages he caused to the Laptop.

4. Notice sent to OP, which was duly served on him. OP remained absent on the date of appearance. Hence OP placed Ex-parte.

5. The stage is set down to adduce affidavit evidence of complainant. In spite of several opportunities granted to complainant, has not adduce his evidence either by oral or by documentary. Hence, the affidavit evidence of complainant is taken as nil and argument on behalf of complainant is taken as heard, in view of several opportunities complainant has not present and address his arguments. But at the time of filing the complaint, complainant has produced 2 documents. One is original tax invoice issued by OP company, another is copy picture of tools. We perused the documents on record and to proceed to pass orders on merits.

6.  On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

7.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Negative.

Point No.2:- Negative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.            

REASONS

8. Point No.1:- Complainant has stated in his complaint that he has booked for repairs service on his Laptop which has screen issue with OP company. Accordingly complainant has produced the documents which discloses that he booked for service from OP on 20.10.2022 which is a original tax invoice issued by Urban company by quoting fees of Rs.329/- including GST. It is evidenting that complainant has booked the service of OP. Complainant further stated that Laptop had only white lines on screen when he booked the repair service with the OP. On the same day technician as conducted the repair service immediately the working condition of Laptop has set down, it is stopped working. Complainant has raised that the OP company stating that their technician has caused even worse condition of Laptop instead of rectifying the defect which he has called for.

9.  It is pertinent to note that complainant has stated that he approached authorized Acer service centre on 21.10.2022 they diagnosed that the Laptop has problem with mother board which is needed to be replaced and also stated that it caused around Rs.70,000/-  to replace the mother board. To prove the same complainant has not produced any document issued by Acer service centre. Complainant even stated that he sent legal notice through E-mail to OP, it has not produced before this commission. Considering, the complainant is not at all present since from the beginning of the proceedings, not filed affidavit evidence, not addressed his arguments and even complainant has failed to produce the relevant documents before this commission to justify the allegations of the complainant against OP. Hence complainant is failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1 in negative.

10. Point No.2:- In the absence of oral and documentary evidence by the complainant, he failed to defend his case and prove the allegations against OP. For the foregoing reasons, we answer Point No.2 in negative.

11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Complaint filed against OP, is hereby dismissed. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^st day of JULY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL