DOF.24.2.06 DOO.3.9.10 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 3rd day of September 2010 C.C.No.47/2006 Mrs.Shanthi Jayarajan, ‘Karthika’, Payyambalam, P.O.Payyambalam, Kannur1. (Rep. by Adv.p.P.Pradeepan) Complainant 1.Shibu.P.A., Managing Director, Angel Electronics, Tharakkandam Estate, Ravipuram, Cochin 15. 2. Babu, Office In charge, Angel Electronics, No.4 Gateway Centre, Thana Junction, Kannur 12. (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Rathnakaran for Ops 1 & 2) Opposite parties O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.38, 000/- as compensation to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that she had entrusted to the 2nd opposite party a Philips FW 650 Mini Hifi system for repair. The set was previously handed over to the 2nd opposite party on 17.6.05 with a complaint in the tape recorder. It was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 19.6.05. Again the set suffered another repair subsequently and hence the set was again handed over to 2nd opposite party on 7.7.05. But it was not returned back by 2nd opposite party even after repeated request of the complainant. But on 26.8.05 the 2nd opposite party endorsed at the back of the bill issued to the complainant that the set was sent to1st opposite party for doing the repair work about 3 weeks back. The complainant believed the words of 2nd opposite party that the repair work would be completed and the set would be returned as early as possible. But the 2nd opposite party was not returned the set after repair even after several request made by the complainant and the complainant believes that the opposite parties have no intention to return the set back to the complainant. So both the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant by replacing the set with a new one or by paying the existing market price of the set, if the opposite parties are not in a position to return the set to the complainant so the complainant issued a lawyer notice dt.19.12.05 to the opposite parties. But the notice of 1st opposite party was returned unserved and 2nd opposite party issued a reply stating untenable contentions. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both the opposite parties appeared and filed their version admitting that the complainant had entrusted a Philip FW 650 Mini Hifi System to opposite party for repair and the set was previously repaired by2nd opposite party and returned back it on 19.6.05. The 2nd opposite party further admits that he had endorsed at the back of the bill issued to the complainant to the effect that the set was sent to 1st opposite party for doing repair work about 3 weeks. According to opposite parties the Mini Hifi system entrusted by the complainant was a model of 15 years back. On the second entrustment the 2nd opposite party opened the system and on inspection it was found that his two transistors of the power supply board were damaged. As the system was of a very old model, the damaged transistor was not available. So the 2nd opposite party detached the power supply board and sent the same to 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party searched for a new transistor to replace the damaged one all over at Vernacular and he could not purchase transistor since it was not available. The opposite party informed the same thing to the complainant and the system could not be repaired and asked them to take back the system. Even though the opposite party repeatedly asked the complainant to come and take back the system, the complainant did not turn up to take it. The 2nd opposite party is a well reputed mechanic and without getting the transistor the system couldn’t be repaired and the reason is also aware of the complainant. If the complainant is providing the damaged transistor to the opposite party then only the opposite party could ascertain whether there is any other defect for the system since the energy is not supplying from the power board. The opposite party could not ascertain whether there is any other defect for the system. The opposite party is always prepared to return the system in the same condition to the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1, DW1 Exts.A1 to A5. Issue No.1 to 3 The case of the complaint is that she had entrusted a Philips FW 650 Mini Hafiz system for repair to 2nd opposite arty after 7.7.05 and the set was not returned to her even after repeated request and the same was sent to 1st opposite party for repair without the consent of the complainant and the set was not given back even today. Because of this she had suffered so much of mental as well as physical hardship and all these were caused due to the deficient service of opposite parties. In order to prove her case she was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A5 are marked such as repair slips, copy of lawyer notice, reply notice and operating manual. The opposite party also examined DW1 in order to prove their case. According to the complainant the set entrusted to the opposite party was damaged due to the carelessness of the opposite parties due to the deficient work. The power board of the set became damaged due to high voltage while testing after repair and that is why the opposite parties are not returning the set. It is an admitted fact that the set was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party and he had not return back the same after repair. But the complainant has not produced any document to show that the opposite party had told her that the set was damaged due to high voltage while testing after repair. The complainant’s another contention is that the set was sent to Ernakuam without her consent and the same was endorsed in Ext.A2. But the opposite party admits that they had sent the mother board only to Ernakulam for getting transistor in the motherboard, which was defective and they contended that the 1st opposite party had returned back the mother board to 2nd opposite party without repair since the transistor of the system is not available due the set being an old one and the same was informed to the complainant. But the opposite parties did not produced any document to prove this. It is true that in Ext.A4 replydated 23.12.05, the opposite parties mentioned that “as the system was of a very old model one the damaged transistor was not available So 2nd opposite party had detached the power supply board and sent the same to opposite party for repairing and they searched for a new transistor to replace the damaged one all over Ernakualam. But they couldn’t repair since the damaged transistor isn’t available’. But this notice was sent to the complainant only as the reply to her notice. The 2nd opposite party contended that they have informed the same to complaint during August through telephone. But no document is before us to prove this. The facts and circumstances of the case shows that the oppose parties have made genuine attempt to repair the set. But there is deficiency on the part of opposite party in informing to the complainant that the set is beyond repair since transistor is not available. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has not produced any bill of purchase to show the value of the system. She contended that it worth Rs.25, 000/-. But there is no document before us. It is true that the set is an old one. We assess the value of the set as Rs.5, 000/- since the set is old one and beyond repair and the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings and the opposite parties are liable to pay it to the complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as value of the set and Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1 & A2. Repair slip issued by OP dt.17.6.05 and 7.7.05. A3.Copy of the layer notice sent to OP A4.Replynotice A5. Instruction manual of Philips FW Mini Hifi System. Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Babu /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Froum, Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
