DOF.05.10.2009

DOO.24.08.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan     :  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari  :  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy                :  Member

Dated this, the 24^th  day of  August    2011

CC.270/2009

Shaji Prasad V.K.,

‘Kumarji House,

Pallikkunnu,

Nr.Chaithanya Kalakshethram,

Kannur 4.                                                       Complainant

 (Rep. by Adv.P.K.Sajeevan)

1.      Angel Techno Services Pvt.Ltd.,

 No.4, Gateway Centre,

 Thana Junction, Kannur 12.

      (Rep. by Adv. Babu Mandein)

2. Har Auto Pvt.Ltd.,

    Har Avenue, Kannothumchal,

    P.O.Chovva, Kannur 6.

    (Rep. by Adv.Babu Mandein)                           Opposite parties   

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the stereo set and to pay  `10,000  as compensation with cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant had purchased a Maruthi Alto car from 2^nd opposite party. A doubled in Stereo set worth of `13,990 of Maruthi JVC collaboration companies was fixed in the car while using it, some coins were fallen accidentally through the holes through which the CD cassette was passing and the stereo was got struck intermittently. So the set was taken to 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party for getting it repaired. He was promised it will be given back within two weeks after repair. When again enquired opposite party told him that it has been send to Ernakulam for service and it would take two weeks time since the spare parts had to come from Japan. Thereafter when complainant contacted regularly opposite party behaved badly and answered with lame excuses. They are intentionally denying the deserved services to the consumers.  Hence this complaint

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version separately denying the main allegation of the complainant. The facts of the contention raised by1st opposite party in brief are as follows: The complainant had purchased Maruthi Alto car and stereo set fitted in it. Complainant took stereo set before the opposite party for repair through 2^nd opposite party. It was informed to the complainant that it would take time to repair the stereo as there was lack of spare parts in the service centre and spare had to come from Japan. It was not a service defect. The allegation of lack of seriousness is not correct. Moreover, it was not a service defect on the part of opposite party. It was occurred due to negligent act of complainant. The stereo set got stucked by insertion of coin. It was not by manufacturing defect. Hence the opposite party is not liable. Even now this opposite party is ready to repair the same. This opposite party was taking steps for necessary repair. The complaint is devoid of merits. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          2^nd opposite party filed version separately but repeated the same contentions of 1^st opposite party. 2^nd opposite party also repeated that 2^nd opposite party is ready to repair the same. This opposite party sent it to its authorized JVC service centre for repair of stereo and they are doing the necessary action on it, but meanwhile the complainant filed the above complaint. The above complaint is devoid of merits.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, DW1, DW2 and Ext. A1.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

Admittedly the complainant took the alleged stereo set to  1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party for getting it repaired. Ext.A1 is the repair slip. Complainant’s case is that opposite party promised to repair the set within two weeks but it has not repaired yet. Whenever he contacted they behaved badly. Opposite party on the other hand contended that even now they are ready to repair the set. Complainant filed this complaint during the time when they were doing the necessary action on it.

          Complainant adduced evidence by means of chief affidavit in tune with his pleadings.  Complainant stated in his affidavit that the stereo set entrusted with the opposite party on 6.6.09 upon the assurance that the same would be returned after repair soon. Ext.A1 is the repair slip. Though the marking of Ext.A1 was objected both opposite parties have admitted that the set was given for repair. 2^nd opposite party in their version itself stated that they sent the complainant to its authorized JVC services  centre for repair of the  stereo and they are doing the necessary action on it, in the meanwhile the complainant filed this complaint. First of all this statement reveals that the set is with 1^st opposite party, the authorized service centre. Hence Ext.A1 whether objected or not is proved to be in the possession of 1^st opposite party. But it is important to read that neither 2^nd opposite party nor 1^st opposite party attempted to explain what were the necessary actions done on the stereo set by the 1^st opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that they have started doing repair right from  6.6.09. The complaint was filed on 5.10.2009. The evidence in this complaint closed on 29.6.2011. The readiness to repair the set has been expressed by both opposite parties. But why they are not reporting that it has been repaired is really creating doubt in the readiness of opposite party to repair the set. The main prayer of the complainant is for the direction to rectify the defect of the set. If opposite parties were ready to rectify the defect what prevented them from repairing the set and reporting it before the Forum. Hence the readiness cannot be considered as genuine. Opposite parties expressed their readiness only to escape from the charge of undue delay in carrying out the repair by obfuscating the actual facts.  It is wonderful to believe such a long period is required for a leading institution likes that of opposite party to get this spare from Japan. It pertinent to note that 1st opposite party did not disclose even now whether the spare is available with them or not. Moreover, no body can say the actual condition of the set at present.

DW2 in his cross examination deposed that “stereo XI-cm-dm-bm R§Ä¡pT icn-bm¡n Xncn-¨p-sIm-Sp-t¡­ D¯-c-hm-Zn-X-z-ap­v” . DW2 is the Manger of the 2^nd opposite party. DW1 in his cross examination deposed that “ {]kvXpX stereo ]n¶oSv ]cn-tim-[-\-¡mbn sIm¨n-bn-te¡v Ab-¨n-cp¶p”. He has again deposed that “ CXp-hsc icn-bm-¡n-sIm-Sp-¯nà Imc-WT spare parts In«m-¯-Xn-\m-emWv?”To another question DW1 answered that “spare parts Rm³ I¼-\n-bn  Bh-i-y s¸«ncp-¶p. I¼-\n-bn Bh-i.-y-s¸-«p-F¶p ImWn-¡m³ sXfn-hp-­v. B sX-fnhp tImS-Xn-bn lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«nÔ  .

          Any how,  it is evident from the evidence of DW1 & DW2 that the stereo is in the custody of 1^st opposite party. There is no evidence to show that 1^st  opposite party has taken any steps to repair the set. Hence there is no doubt there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party, he who, is liable to meet the loss sustained by the complainant. We have no hesitation to say that 1^st opposite party is liable to pay compensation. Considering the entire case we are of opinion that an amount of  `10,000 will meet the ends of justice. 1^st opposite party is liable to pay this amount to complainant. Thus issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant. Order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of `10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only)  as compensation together with a sum of `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 for interest @12% from the date of this order. The order can be executed by the complainant after the expiry of 30 days   as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

                          Sd/-                    Sd/-                 Sd/-

                   President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1 Copy of repair certificate dt.6.6.09

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party:

DW1. Sahadevan. A

DW2.Rajesh.C.V

                  /forwarded by order/

          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.