D.O.F. 17.05.2012 D.O.O. 28.07.2011 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 28th day of July, 2012. C.C.No.154/2012 K. Sreedharan, Souparnika, Naalampeedika, : Complainant P.O. Mamba, PIN : 670 611 Biju, Smile N Service, (Customer Service Centre,Videocon) : Opposite Parties Ramatheru, Pallikkunnu. PIN : 670 004 O R D E R Smt. M.D. Jessy, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of ` 14,000 as compensation. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that on 24.12.2011 complainant entrusted his DVD player with remote to opposite party for repair. The complainant further alleges that his set become useless due to the careless act of the technicians of the opposite party. Subsequently complainant taken back the set from the opposite party and brought the set to Vasulal electrocrafts at Kannur. Since the channel on the back of the set was broken, the set could not be repaired. Hence on 10.03.2012 complainant given the set to shop of opposite party and opposite party received the same to repair the set within a week. But so far the set was not represented and returned to the complainant. The notice issued by complainant was also returned as ‘unclaimed’. Hence complainant alleges that he is entitled to get `14,000 on various heads as compensation for the defective service rendered by the opposite party. Eventhough Forum issued notice to the opposite party it was also returned unclaimed by opposite party hence the opposite party was set exparte. On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost? The evidence consists of chief affidavit of the complainant and Ext.A1 and A2 marked. Issue No.1 to 3 : The complainant adduced evidence in tune with the complaint. Ext.A1 is the receipt dated 24.12.11 by the opposite party, while receiving the set for repair from the complainant. Subsequently without making any repair the set was delivered to the complainant and an endorsement is seen made in the Ext.A1 receipt. Complainant alleges that the channel on the back of the DVD player was broken due to the careless act of the Technician of the opposite party. The set was again taken to Vasulal Electro Craft at Kannur and from there it was informed that the set could not be repaired due to the breaking up of the channel in the set. Complainant again on 10.03.12 handed over the set to the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to make the repair with in a week. But the set was not repaired so far. Hence complainant issued a notice on 25.04.2012 to opposite party directing to return the set within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. The notice was also returned unclaimed. Hence complainant is claiming a total compensation of `14,000 which includes `3700 towards value of the set, `250 as traveling expense, `300 towards court expense and `9750 towards mental agony, suffered by the complainant. Eventhough complainant alleged that his DVD player is worth `3700 no receipt or bill is seen produced to show its value and the years of manufacture. It is the admitted case that complainant entrusted the set to opposite party for making some repair work. From Ext.A1 receipt it can see that the set was delivered to the complainant without making any repair. The nature of repair work needed is also not stated in the complaint. Anyhow the opposite party has not collected any amount towards service charge from the complainant. As per the opinion from Vasulal Electro Craft the set is not repairable. But again on 10.03.2012 the complainant handed over the set to opposite party for making repair work. The complainant’s allegation is that one Jayachandran agreed the complainant that the set would be repaired and brought to the house of the complainant before 09.04.2012. It was also not done by the opposite party. Hence complainant issued Ext.A2 notice to the opposite party on 25.04.2012 directing the opposite party to deliver the set within 10 days of the receipt of notice. The Ext.A2 notice returned unclaimed by the opposite party. Complainant alleges that there is gross deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. From the statement itself it is clear that the set is an old one and damaged. From the opinion obtained from Vasulal Electrocrafts it is clear that the set is not repairable. No service charge was received by the opposite party from the complainant for effecting any repair of his set. The allegation of the complainant that the channel on the set was broken due to the careless act of the technician of the opposite party is not believable. If that be so complainant would not have received the set at the first instance from the opposite party. Since the opposite party himself handed over the set to the shop of opposite party at Ramatheru it is the duty of the complainant to collect the set back from there. As per Ext.A1 receipt it is clear that on 10.03.12 onwards the set is with opposite party. Hence opposite party is having duty to hand over the set to the complainant after getting proper receipt. The non-response of the opposite party to the notice issued by the complainant and the Forum is to be considered seriously. Hence we are of the opinion that opposite party is liable to pay `500 as compensation and a sum of `250 as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. If the opposite party failed to do so the complainant is entitled to get `3700 the value of the set as calculated by the complainant and `250 as cost of the proceedings. Issuse are answered accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to give back the DVD player to the complainant by obtaining receipt and also directed to pay `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as compensation together with a sum of `250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as cost of this proceedings, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay `3700 (Rupees Three thousand seven hundred only) as the value of the set together with `250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as cost of this proceedings. The complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- President Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Bill dated 24.12.2011. A2. Registered inland letter returned. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant Nil Witness examined for opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
