IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 8th day of September 2009 OP.105/2004 V.K.Abootty, Thavakkal Cutpiece Centre, N ear Priya Talkies, Complainant Mattannur. C.M.Hareesh, National Radio Electronics, Opposite party Iritty Road, Mattannur. (Rep. by Adv.R.P.Remesan) O R D E R Sri.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to refund the value of an MP3 CD player set i.e. Rs.3500/- with Rs.1000/- as compensation. Complainant’s case is that he had entrusted an MP3 CD player set made up of National Panasonic Company to opposite party for repair and the opposite party promised that he will repair the set within 3 days during 2004 January. After 3 days the complainant approached the opposite party for repaired set . But the opposite party told him that a spare part which worth Rs.500/- is required for the repair and as a result, the complainant has given the above said amount to opposite party and promised that the set will be repaired and returned back after two days. On that day the opposite party demanded the complainant Rs.250/- as repair charge and he had given the same and promised that the set will be returned the next day. But on that day also the opposite party had not returned the set and wanted one week’s further time for repairing and after one week, the complainant found that the set was entirely destroyed due to lack of knowledge of the opposite party in the field. Even though the complainant wanted the set, the opposite party is not willing to return back. So the complainant had issued a lawyer notice on 28.1.04.Eventhough the opposite party has received the notice he neither return back the set nor replied it. This was happened due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party and hence this complaint. After receiving the notice from the Forum, the opposite party had appeared through Adv.R.P.Rameshan and filed their version. The opposite party denies that the MP3 set is made up of National Panasonic but it was manufactured by National Panasonic. He further submits that he had intimated the fact that the lens and motherboard of the system is not working and hence it is to be replaced and he agreed to pay the expense for the same. The fact that display shown on the front of the set may not be worked properly, while changing motherboard also intimated to the opposite party. The complainant agreed and asked for the repair. The cost of the spares and repair charge is Rs.800/- and when the opposite party asked for the amount, the complainant refused to take back the same alleging the amount so charged is exorbitant. He denied the averment that he had received Rs.750/- and due to the lack of knowledge there arose more complications and dragged the delivery etc. On receiving the lawyer notice the opposite party met the complainant and the complainant agreed to take back the set after paying the said amount. But he did not turn up. Moreover the opposite party contended that the CD player entrusted to the opposite party is cheaper and the amount shown is not correct. The cost of the CD player will not exceed Rs.1500/- and the complainant has not sustained any loss due to the service of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.B1 and B1 (a) Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The complainant’s case is that he had entrusted a National Panasonic MP3 player set to opposite party and the opposite party was not returned back even after the repeated request and has paid Rs.750/- as spare charge and repair charges. But the opposite party contended that the complainant entrusted a Panasonic MP3 player which is a duplicate one and he had repaired the same and the complainant is not ready to take delivery of the set. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the set is of Panasonic. But the opposite party has produced the set before the Forum after repair, and the complainant identified the same as his set. But his contention is that the display of the set is not working eventhough the MP3 player is in working condition. The opposite party has produced Ext.B1 and B1 (a) document which proves that the complainant has not paid any amount towards the repair charge. The opposite party demanded Rs.800/- as spare and repair charges. . The complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party. Anyway the Forum realizes that the MP3 player set is with the opposite party and it has to be delivered to the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the opposite party has to deliver the MP3 player in working condition after receiving the repair charge of Rs.800/-. In the result, the opposite party is directed to return back the MP3 player set to the complainant in working condition after receiving the repairing charge of Rs,800/.- from the complainant. Complainant is entitled to get the set on payment of Rs.800/- within one month, failing which i.e. is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant: Nil Exhibits for the opposite party B1Bill book (counterfoil) B1 (a) page NO.299 Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.C.M.Hareesh /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
