SRI. SAJEESH.K.     : MEMBER

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  an order directing the  OP to remit an amount of Rs.6300/- which was collected from  complainant and to pay Rs.16585/- towards the expenses incurred as the rent of laptop, mental agony etc.

     The complainant in brief

    On 2018 February, Dell Inspirol Laptop which was 8 years old became  complaint and  complainant approached OP to repair.  After 2 days OP told that the mother board has to replace and it will cost Rs.6000/- and believing the words of OP, complainant paid Rs.6300/- and took his laptop after repair. At the time of payment of Rs.6300/- OP assured complainant that the mother board was replaced and there is no room for any sort of complaint.  But on 2018 September, the complaint again started with the laptop and complainant approached OP and a technician there at told that the hard disc of the laptop has to be replaced and it will cost Rs.4000/-.  Moreover, on enquiry technician told that the mother board is an old one.  Thereafter complainant showed the bill of Rs.6300/- for the replacement of mother board, made to OP, the technician has no word to say the complainant took his laptop to another shop and they told that nothing in the laptop was replaced.  The complainant’s children suffered a lot of hardships due to the negligent behavior of OP.  Hence this complaint.

   After filing this complaint the commission has send notice to  OP.  OP entered appears before the commission and filed his version accordingly.

Version of  OP in brief:

The OP denies the entire averments by him  except those admitted.  The OP contended that they received an amount of Rs.6300/- to replace the mother board of the laptop which was given by complainant to repair.  The OP repaired the laptop through a service center at Kannur, Thavakara.  The OP contended that the repaired laptop became defective on 12/9/2018 and taken to the OP and a service man told that hard disc is  complaint and it will cost Rs.4000/- is entirely false and hence denied.  All the averment regarding the complainant suffered monitory loss  when his children failed to present their dissertation on time the some other service center told that the mother board was not replaced etc are denied specifically by OP.  Moreover OP contended that their shop has a reputation in Iritty town and they have reputed customers  from government as well as non government organizations. The complainant is trying to defame their reputation  by making allegation of deficiency in service.  The OP contended that they provide best service to their customers all through.   There is no base on the complaint and hence liable to be dismissed.

   Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of OP towards complainant?
2. cost  &  relief ?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called for the evidence from complainant as well as OP.    The complainant produced one  document which is marked as Ext.A1 is the original bill issued  by OP dtd.26/2/2018. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  OP produced one document ,the  original bill issued by Laptop Lab Service center which was marked Ext.B1. OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as DW1and technician of laptop lab examined as DW2. 

Issue No.1

      To answer the issues, the commission looked into the documents produced by complainant and OP as well as the deposition made by complainant and OP and witness.

      As per Ext.A1, it is seen that  Rs.6300/- incurred for the replacement of motherboard and service charge.  There is no dispute with regard to the payment of said amount between complainant and OP.  According to Ext.B1 which was issued by the Laptop lab service center to OP, the expense of mother board is seen as Rs.5500/-.  During the cross examination  of OP and witness(technician of laptop) deposed  that  Rs.6300/- is inclusive amount of mother board  and service charge.  But there is no documentary evidence produced by OP and witness to prove that the mother board is ordered from Delhi.  The complainant’s averments regarding the defect of the laptop persist even after the replacement of mother board is not proved through any documents.  The complainant neither produced his laptop before the commission nor taken any expert opinion to prove his averment regarding the persist of defect after the replacement of mother board.  Moreover, the complainant admits that the laptop is of 8 years old.  During the  chief examination of DW2, he deposed that the mother board comes with no warranty and the defect can be caused in many other ways and need not be the complaint of mother board exclusively.  There is no evidence before the commission with regard to loss incurred by complainant’s  children only mere  statement in complaint and affidavit.  The complainant alleged that the mother board is not replaced even after the payment of  Rs.6300/- but no technical opinion  was taken to prove it.  Moreover, complainant stated that he used laptop for 6 months after the repair.  The complainant never examined any person to prove his allegation regarding the non replacement of mother board.  The said laptop is under the custody of complainant.  Hence the deficiency in service from the part of OP is not proved  and issue No.1 is answered against the complainant.

Issue No.2:

     The complainant is not entitled to get the compensation since the deficiency in service as well as hardship or monetary loss not proved after the repair of laptop.  The complainant enjoyed the service of laptop for 6 months after the repair.  Defect arise after the repair is not proved by availing the service of any technical expert by complainant disentitled to get the benefit of this Act.  Hence Issue No.2 is answered against complainant.

      Hence complainant is not entitled to get compensation or cost since the deficiency in service as prayed  in the complaint is not proved before this commission.

   In the result complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Exts:

A1- Cash receipt

B1- Cash Bill

PW1-George M.V-complainant

DW1-Rahul.K.R- OP

DW2-Sudheep- witness of DW1

  Sd/                                                        Sd/                                                  Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR