State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Parminder Singh Madhur vs Ease Computers on 26 March, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 525 of 2011
Date of institution: 24.3.2011
Date of decision : 26.3.2013
Mr. Parminder Singh Madhur s/o Sh. Dayal Singh Madhur, Village Barring,
Jalandhar.
.....Appellant
Versus
EASE Computers, 312, IInd Floor, Prestige Chamber, Near Narinder
Cinema, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 14.2.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex.-parte.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Parminder Singh(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 14.2.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was partly accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that he was owner of Laptop Computer Make Sony Vaio, Model No. VGN FZ11M, which was purchased by him three years ago for Rs. 80,000/- which became out of order. The appellant approached the respondent for the repair/removal of the defects on 29.2009. The respondent checked the Computer and kept the same First Appeal No. 525 of 2011 2 with it for repair and asked the appellant to collect the same after one week. But when the appellant approached after one week it was told by the respondent that due to some personal work he could not repair the same and same be collected after ten days. But after 10 days again made the same excuse and asked to come after one week. It was pleaded that after several visits on 18.11.2009, the respondent gave back the said Laptop to the appellant saying that the defects had been removed and charged Rs. 16,530/- including Rs. 1530/- as service tax vide invoice No. 18NV2009 dated 18.11.2009 from the appellant. The respondent had no service tax No., as such, he had wrongly charged the service tax from the appellant. Service tax can be levied only if the trader had service tax number and his service sale was more than Rs. Eight lacs per annum. It was also assured by the respondent that in case the appellant found any defect in the Laptop that will be rectified free of cost. But when the appellant used the laptop at home, lines again appeared on the screen of the Laptop. It was also found that important data i.e. software, Window Vista in original given with the laptop of Rs. 7000/-, business and marriage snaps, photoshop, Corel Draw alongwith Norton Antivirus valid for 10 years, which was purchased for 200£ (pounds) from England were negligently deleted by the respondent. On the same day the appellant again approached the respondent and shown the laptop to the respondent and also apprised regarding the deletion of the above data from the Laptop but the respondent loudly replied that he was not responsible for anything. The appellant again met the respondent with respectable persons for the removal of the defects and for the restoration of the data or to return Rs. 16,530/- which was charged by the respondent from the appellant but he refused to rectify the defects as well as to return the amount. The complaint was filed by the appellant with the prayer that the respondent may be directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- as price of the laptop, Rs. 16,530/- which was charged as repair charges, Rs. First Appeal No. 525 of 2011 3 50,000/- costs of the business data, Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment i.e. Rs. 1,99,950/- in the interest of equity and justice.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the respondent taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form, the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious, appellant has not come with clean hands, no cause of action had ever accrued to the appellant and the appellant was estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant approached the respondent for the removal of the defects of his Laptop, which was repaired and defects were removed by the respondent and Rs. 16,530/- was charged vide invoice dated 18.11.2009. It was denied that the respondent switched off the laptop by saying that the appellant may check the same at its home but the same was checked by the appellant at the time of taking the delivery and found the laptop as 'OK' and payment of repair was made by the appellant to the respondent after satisfying himself. It was also admitted that it was told by him to the appellant that in case any defect removed by him occurred again within a period of one week, the same will be repaired/removed free of cost as mentioned in the delivery challan. It was denied that the same lines again appeared on the screen of the Laptop. It was also denied that any data stored in the Laptop was deleted during the repair of the Laptop. The mechanics of the respondent were skilled one and had the knowledge regarding the importance of the data stored in the Laptop. The laptop was repaired with due care and consideration. The appellant never visited the service centre of the respondent after taking the delivery of the Laptop. It was prayed that false and fictitious complaint was filed, which was liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, partly accepted the complaint of the First Appeal No. 525 of 2011 4 appellant and directed the respondent to refund Rs. 1530/- which was charged as service tax from the appellant.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the impugned order of the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises and against the settled law, which is liable to be modified and prayed that the complaint of the appellant may be allowed.
6. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant approached the respondent on 2.9.2009 for the removal of the defects of his Laptop and the same was returned/delivered back by the respondent on 18.11.2009 after charging Rs. 16,530/- as repair charges including Rs. 1530/- as service tax.
7. The dispute between the parties is only:-
(i) Whether the defects of the Laptop were removed by the respondent or not?
(ii) Whether any data of the Laptop was deleted by the mechanics of the respondent during the repair of the Laptop or not?
8. The version of the appellant is that it was asked by the respondent to the appellant to check the Laptop at his house and switched off the Laptop. But the version of the appellant that he received the Laptop without its checking and paid Rs. 16,530/- is not believable.
9. The appellant has also not tendered any report of any Laptop Mechanic to prove his version that the defects of the Laptop were not removed by the respondent. The appellant also not produced the Laptop before the District Forum to prove that the Laptop was not in working condition and the respondent had received Rs. 16530/- from the appellant illegally and without rectifying the defects. The appellant after producing First Appeal No. 525 of 2011 5 the Laptop could ask the respondent to play the laptop in the District Forum that there was no defect in the Laptop.
10. The appellant has also not produced any evidence to prove that there were datas like Software Windows Vista in original, marriage snaps, photoshop, Coreldraw etc. stored in the Laptop.
11. The appellant had also not disclosed the names of the respectable persons, who had gone with him at the service centre of the respondent. Neither the affidavit of any said person was tendered by the appellant, nor examined any person to prove its version, who accompanied the report. Not disclosing the name of the respectable persons as well as not examining any such respectable person proves that the version of the appellant is not correct. The District Forum already directed the respondent to refund Rs. 1530/- which was charged as service tax from the appellant but no appeal is filed by the respondent against the order of the District Forum, as such, the order of the District Forum has attained finality regarding the refund of Rs. 1530/-.
12. The appeal of the appellant is meritless and without any evidence. The order of the District Forum is speaking one and there is no infirmity in the same, as such, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed without any order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.3.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
March 26, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member
First Appeal No. 525 of 2011 6
First Appeal No. 525 of 2011 7