Full Judgment
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT
The appellant is the complainant in CC.391/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellant is under orders to remit a sum of Rs.5,225/- to the opposite party. The Forum has permitted the complainant to withdraw R.2,000/- deposited as per the direction of the Forum for releasing the laptop.
2. The respondent/opposite party stood ex-parte before the Forum.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted to the laptop to the opposite party on 16.8.08 for repairs with respect to the absence of sound while working. He was advised by the opposite party that the laptop has to be serviced in full and that there shall be a guarantee for one month. On the promised date of return he went to the opposite party and paid the amount and on checking the laptop it was found that there was no display. Hence as directed by the opposite party the laptop was entrusted with the opposite party who told that within 5 or 6 days the computer shall be rectified and was told that the cash memo itself is the guarantee for one month and no fresh receipt is required. According to him he had gone a number of times for getting the laptop back. According to him he could not properly follow up the classes as the required software were installed in the laptop. He was a student of computer related courses. The same has effected his studies considerably. When telephoned he was told that they are examining each part. Thereafter also the laptop was not returned. Subsequently when contacted he was told that it cannot be rectified. According to him, the opposite parties misbehaved when his father went to the outfit along with time. According to him his father was threatened. He has sought for a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation.
4. The opposite parties had contended that the laptop had defects with respect to the sound and display and it had to be sent either to Mumbai or Chennai. He was told to bear the expenses amounting to Rs.6,000/-. But the complainant wanted to rectify the sound problem alone and the same was rectified after accepting Rs.900/-. The complainant again came on 20.9.08 and wanted repair the display system and he agreed to sent the computer to Mumbai or Chennai and undertook to give the expenses of Rs.6000/-. According to the opposite parties, the defects was rectified by spending Rs.5,225/-. According to the opposite parties the complaint has been filed for avoiding of the payment of the above charges.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6, B1 and B2.
6. The Forum has passed a cryptic order and directed to pay Rs.5,225/- to the complainant as claimed by the opposite party. The amount of Rs.2000/- remitted before the Forum by the complainant as directed by the Forum for release of the laptop was directed to refunded to the complainant himself.
7. It is the case of the complainant that Ext.B1 the tax invoice with respect to the repair charges produced before the Forum contained the serial No.55116Z3 whereas the serial number of his laptop as can be seen from Ext.A1 and A2 is 5511623. The receipts issued by the opposite party also mentions serial number 5511623. According to the complainant/appellant, the opposite party has misled the Forum by producing the tax invoice of a different computer. The name of the complainant is also not mentioned in Ext.B1. We find that it is the case of the complainant that there was no defect to the display mechanism when the laptop was entrusted with the opposite party. It has also to be noted that whereas the complainant has testified before the Forum the opposite party did not mount the witness box. The above said circumstance also indicates that the case of the complainant is true. Hence the order of the Forum is set aside. The direction to pay Rs.5225/- to the opposite parties is set aside. The complainant is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,000/- deposited before the Forum. The appeal is allowed as above.
The office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.