Haryana

StateCommission

A/593/2015

JAI PARKASH(PINKI SHARMA) - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKRANT COMPUTER HARDWARE - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN GUPTA

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      593 of 2015

Date of Institution:      15.07.2015

Date of Decision :      14.09.2015

 

Jai Prakash (Pinki Sharma) son of Raghuvir Prasad, Resident of Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, through Proprietor Sharma Studio, Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Vikrant Computer Hardware, Main Chouraha, Dabla Road, opposite Panadavi Girls College, Rotputli (Jaipur), District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

 

2.      Sun Computer, B-112, Shop No.5107972, Raisa Plaza, Jaipur through Proprietor Ranjeet Jain.

 

3.      Bestern Digital Technology 71, Diksan Road, Bangalore-560042 through Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Varun Gupta, Advocate for appellant-complainant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The complainant has filed the instant appeal against the order dated June 8^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Narnaul, seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.  

2.      The appellant-complainant purchased a hard disc from M/s Vikrant Computer Hardware vide bill No.838 dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure C-2). The above said disc became defective on July 25^th, 2014. The opposite parties being approached, the disc was replaced with a new one. The grievance of the complainant is that the old (defective) hard disc contained recording of 10-12 marriages but the said data was not returned by the opposite parties. It was complainant to have taken back-up of data of hard Disc before he handed over the same to seller for replacement. The opposite party has replaced the defective hard Disc with new one without any demeanour.

3.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum direct the respondent-opposite party No.3 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant in addition to Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

4.      Since the main grievance of the complainant has already been redressed by replacing the defective hard disc and also that he has been granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- besides Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses, so, this Commission is of the view that the appellant-complainant has been adequately compensated and no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

5.      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

Announced 14.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL