S. Baidya, J.
1. This appeal filed on 16.08.13 by the appellant under the C.P.Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.13 passed by the Learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C-68/12 whereby the O.P. No-1, the respondent herein has been directed to pay the value of the mother board amounting to Rs.10,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the compensation for deficiency of service along with a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation.
2. The case of the appellant who is the complainant in the complaint case as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the appellant filed the complaint before the Learned District Forum alleging, inter alia, that he purchased one Asus Laptop on 17.08.10 for consideration for his personal use and facing some starting problem in the Laptop, on 17.03.12 the appellant handed over the same to the respondent No-1 who is the authorized agent of the respondent No-2 for running a centre at Agartala for rendering service to the customer and one engineer of the respondent No-1 estimated the cost for repairing of the Laptop at Rs.300/- with the assurance that it would be returned within 7/8 days and accordingly, the Laptop was handed over to the respondent No-1 for repairs, but after seven days when the appellant visited said service centre, he was informed that the repairing work could not be completed and he was asked further to come after seven days. It has also been stated that thereafter the appellant visited that service centre for several times for the repaired laptop, but the matter was dragged on different pleas and thereafter on 26.05.12 the appellant was informed by the respondent No-1 that the mother board of the laptop had been damaged for which additional charge of Rs.9502/- to Rs.11,200/- would be required for replacement of the mother board and the appellant then on 29.05.12 brought the matter to the notice of the manufacturer of the laptop i.e. the respondent No-2 by e-mail, but with no remedy.
3. It is further alleged that it is the respondent No-1 for whose mishandling of the Laptop, the mother board was damaged and therefore, the respondent No-1 was guilty of committing deficiency in service and liable to pay price of the mother board and other repairing cost of the laptop.
4. It has also been stated in the memo of appeal that the respondent No-1 contested the complaint case by filing written statement denying the allegation of committing deficiency in service, although it was admitted regarding receiving of the Laptop from the appellant for repairs and his failure to do so in time.
5. It has also been stated that the respondent No-2 did not turn up. Thereafter the Learned District Forum considering the evidences adduced by the parties and other matters passed the impugned judgment.
6. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Learned Forum did not consider properly the matter of harassment and the non-supply of Laptop in time to the appellant and also has omitted to pass any order for returning the Laptop deposited to the respondent No-1 after repairing with the mother board in serviceable condition or to pay the price of new laptop within the specific time and that the litigation cost of Rs.1000/- as awarded is quite inadequate as the appellant had to bear huge expenses for the purpose and hence the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
7. The moot point revolved around this appeal is as to whether the judgment passed by the Learned District Forum is sustainable in the eye of law.
Decision with Reasons.
8. Considering the cases of the parties and evidences on record we find some admitted facts.
9. Admittedly, the appellant purchased one Asus Laptop on 17.08.2010 and handed over the same to the respondent No-1 with a starting problem in the Laptop for repairing purpose. It is also admitted fact that a customer care card was issued to the appellant demanding a sum of Rs.300/- after receiving the said Asus Laptop for repairing purpose on 17.03.2012 with the complaint of starting problem. It is also admitted fact that no specific date has been given in the customer care card for getting the said Laptop returned from the respondent No-1 after repairing. It is also admitted fact that the respondent No-1 sent a letter on 26.05.12 to the appellant/complainant informing him that the Laptop received with starting problem from the complainant ultimately is found problem in the mother board and the same requires to be replaced for which the cost would be Rs.9,500/- to 11,200/- approximately. It was also admitted by that letter that the said mother board was then not available with the respondent No-1 and the appellant would be informed when it would be available in their stock. It is also admitted fact as appearing from the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant that in the mean time the warranty period of Laptop has lapsed and the Laptop in question is still lying in the custody of the respondent No-1.
10. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant handed over his Laptop only with the complaint of starting problem in the Laptop for which a sum of Rs.300/- was charged, but even on visit the service centre for several times the appellant could not get his Laptop from the respondent No-1 in repaired and serviceable condition. He also submitted that after keeping the Laptop for two and half months in the custody of the respondent No-1 the appellant was informed in writing that the mother board of the Laptop has been damaged and it requires replacement which would involve an amount of Rs.9,500/- to Rs.11,200/- approx. He also submitted that the appellant, not only suffers harassment for a long period, but also failed to get the service from the Laptop for a considerable period due to the non-supply of the repaired Laptop in time. He also submitted that the Learned District Forum only awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of mother board, Rs.5000/- towards compensation, Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. He further submitted that the appellant wants to get his Laptop in serviceable condition or the respondent No-1 may be directed to supply a new Laptop of the same Model within a specific date.
11. The learned advocate for the respondent No-1 submitted that the respondent No-1 is a small service centre and although in the customer care card it was signed by an Engineer, but practically it was signed by an ordinary clerk sitting in the counter of the service centre who practically has no knowledge about operating system of the Laptop and that clerk sitting in the counter noted in the customer care card the complaint of starting problem in the Laptop itself and then and there.
12. The learned advocate for the respondent No-1 further submitted that the appellant purchased the Laptop for an amount of Rs.31,900/- on 17.08.10, but in this appeal the appellant is claiming a total amount of Rs.80,000/- for his Laptop. He also submitted that the respondent No-1 is ready to pay the total awarded amount of Rs.16,000/- ( 10,000/- + 5000 + 1000/-) to the appellant and the judgment under appeal requires a direction upon the respondent No-1 to hand over the Laptop in its present condition with the awarded money to the appellant as the judgment under appeal speaks nothing regarding the returning of the Laptop by the respondent No-1 to the appellant.
13. We have heard the learned advocate of both sides.Perusd the cases of the respective parties along with the evidences both oral and documentary adduced by the parties.
14. It transpires that the cost of the mother board of the Laptop would be about Rs.9,500/- to Rs.11,200/- approx as per letter of the respondent No-1 to the appellant. As there is no other price of the mother board before us, we are inclined to accept the price of the mother board as per letter of the respondent No-1 at a higher side i.e. Rs.11,200/-. The appellant did not know practically the present condition of the Laptop in question barring the reporting of the respondent No-1 to the effect that the system has System Board Problem i.e. problem in the mother board of the Laptop. Whether the said mother board alone or any other parts of the Laptop requires to be replaced, that has not been ascertained by any other expert service centre while the complaint was pending before the District Forum for adjudication. The appellant also could not show, if any, other parts of the Laptop barring mother board requires to be replaced to make the Laptop in question in workable condition. On due consideration of the whole matter, it is our considered view that the awarding of compensation of Rs.5000/- for deficiency of service along with a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation is found not justifiable one. According to us, the amount of compensation for deficiency of service should be Rs.7000/- instead of Rs.5000/- and the litigation cost should be Rs.2000/- instead of Rs.1000/-. Barring awarding the value of mother board to an amount of Rs.10,000/-, the amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation, we are of the view that the other findings of the Learned District Forum are found proper and acceptable. With this we allow the appeal partly with the modification that the respondent/O.P. No-1 shall pay to the appellant the value of mother board amounting to Rs.11,200/- instead of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.7000/- instead of Rs.5000/- towards the compensation for deficiency of service along with a sum of Rs.2000/- instead of Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation.
15. The respondent/O.P. No-1 is directed to hand over the Laptop in question in its present condition to the appellant within 30 days from the date of judgment who will receive the same from the counter of respondent No-1 on proper receipt.
16. The respondent/O.P. No-1 is further directed to pay the awarded amount to the appellant within 30 days and hand over the Laptop as aforesaid, failing which the amount so awarded will carry interest @ 9% p.a. after the expiry of 30 days till payment is made.