Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard Sri Prasenjit Biswas, the appellant appearing in person (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Loknath Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, HP Services (hereinafter referred to as opposite party).

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Prasenjit Biswas, gave his HP Laptop Computer No.CND4338HZ on 2nd May, 2019 to the opposite party i.e. HP Services for minor repairing works after encountering a problem with the computer that it could not be charged and it was considered that its battery was to be replaced. After a few days i.e. on 6th May, 2019, the service firm had returned the laptop along with a bill from which it was found that the firm had charged an amount of Rs.8000/- for "New Display, Motherboard repair with services and diagnosed charged". After getting back the laptop, it was found that many letters of the keyboard of the said laptop viz. 'O' and 'H' did not work, one of the USB ports did not work besides there was major fault in keypad/ keyboard for which multiple letters appeared on the screen without any key being pressed. Thus, it became clear that the laptop which was in immaculate condition before repairs with a small problem that it could not be charged was completely damaged by this firm in the name of repairs through their act of cheating and deceit. Thereafter, the complainant issued a letter on 30th May, 2019 to the said service provider firm through Postal Dak and the same was communicated to them. The opposite party confirmed they have received the said communication through mail. Thereafter, through a messenger sent the complainant parts of damaged keyboard etc. purportedly replaced by them with two Tax Invoices dated 6th May, 2019 and 21st May, 2019 respectively for Rs.8,000/- (already paid) and another Rs.1,700/- to be paid in addition. It is evident that the opposite party damaged the laptop in the name of repairs and charged exorbitant amount through deceit and had the guts to demand more money in the name of repairs after receiving money in the name of "diagnose charged". The complainant waited patiently for last about a month with the expectation that good sense would prevail and the firm shall refund the money taken by them through deceit without actually providing the requisite services.
We have gone through the submission of the complainant, Sri Prasenjit Biswas as well as the Mr. Loknath Datta, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party. We have also gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. From the evidence on record it appears that the complainant gave his HP Laptop Computer No.CND4338HZ to the respondent-opposite party, HP Services on 02.05.2019 for minor repairing works. After encountering problem in the computer that it cannot be charged, it was considered that its battery was to be replaced. It also appears that the respondent-opposite party, Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. issued the bill in the name of Falguni Biswas, the wife of the complainant on 06.05.2019 and thereafter, the complainant take up the matter with the opposite party as the problem of the laptop had not been addressed properly and the problem persisted. By its letter dated 30th May, 2019 (Annexure-II) of the complaint petition which was marked as Exhibit-1 series and the said letter was also received by the opposite party. In the letter dated June 13, 2019, the opposite party admitted that they received the aforesaid letter dated 30th May, 2019 written by the complainant and it is stated in the letter dated 3rd June, 2019 that if any new problem to contact with them. It also appears that the opposite party subsequently, received the Hp Laptop from the complainant which will be evident from receipt/challan dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure-IV), Exhibit-1 series. From the impugned judgment it appears that the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition only on a technical ground that the complainant is not the owner of the laptop and no authorization letter was submitted by him. In support of its contention the learned District Commission referred the provisions 2 sub Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but did not consider the provisions of Section 2 sub Section 2 (1) (d) wherein it is mentioned that, "(d) "consumer" means any person who,-- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;.............."  

It appears from the record that the opposite party filed the written statement through one Biswanath Chakraborty, but there is no authorization letter for filing such written statement.  

The respondent-opposite party is directed to repair the hp laptop of the complainant to the full satisfaction of the complainant without charging any additional money from him as admittedly, the respondent-opposite party already received Rs.8,000/- from his wife for repairing the laptop. The appellant-complainant is directed to place the laptop to the respondent-opposite party, HP Services, C/o M/s Scamper Technologies & Services Pvt. Ltd. within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the judgment.

The respondent-opposite party shall repair the hp laptop of the complainant to his satisfaction within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the laptop, failing which, the respondent-opposite party shall return the amount of Rs.8,000/- (already paid by the complainant as repairing charge of hp laptop to the respondent-opposite party) along with interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of receipt of the judgment.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and in consequent there to, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.