BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 34/2008 Filed on 20.02.2008

Dated : 30.01.2009

Complainant:

Lijin V.S, Anugraha, Vlathankara, Chenkal, Neyyattinkara.

Opposite party:

Chinnamani, Cool Tech Engineers, Hospital Junction, Neyyattinkara.

(By adv. M.P. Pramod Kumar)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.12.2008, the Forum on 30.01.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The opposite party had taken the fridge from the complainant's house on 18.10.2007 for repairing. The opposite party was running a fridge repairing shop named as “Cool Tech Engineers” at Neyyattinkara. As per the complainant the fridge had some minor defects, i.e, the door of the fridge began to rust and also the stand of the fridge was damaged. At that time the marriage of the complainant was fixed. In connection with that event, the fridge was given for repair. The opposite party assured that he will repair the fridge immediately ie; the very next day and he had also received Rs. 2000/- as advance for the repair works. The complainant stated that they have been using the fridge since 1986 onwards. Hence it is very essential for their daily needs. After one week the complainant enquired the opposite party about the fridge then the opposite party replied that within one week he will be delivered the fridge. But thereafter several times the complainant approached the opposite party for the fridge. But the opposite party did not respond to it. All the attempts to get back the fridge from the opposite party failed. At last the mother of the complainant forced him to purchase a new fridge. Then he had taken a friend's fridge for the use during the marriage function. At last on 20.12.2007 with the help of a police constable the fridge from the custody of the opposite party was delivered to the complainant. Then he paid Rs. 750/- also to the opposite party as per the demand of the opposite party.

The complainant had to suffer a lot of hardships and sufferings physically and mentally due to the negligent, deficient, irresponsible and lethargic attitude of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

The opposite party filed version and in his version he denied the allegations against him. Main contention of the opposite party is that he is not the proprietor of the Cool Tech Engineers. He had not taken the refrigerator from the complainant as alleged in the complaint. He is only a neighbour of the complainant. The fridge which was repaired is not Leonard, it is a Kelvinator refrigerator. The defects of the fridge were not minor. The fridge was very old and almost all parts of the refrigerator were in a damaged condition. It was not possible to repair the fridge within one week. And also the opposite party denied the bill and he stated that he has not issued such a bill. He repaired the fridge without cost. In the version he also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint because there was no deficiency of service from his part.

In this case the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and he has produced the bill issued by the opposite party and that bill was marked as Ext. P1. The opposite party cross examined the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Points (i) & (ii):- In the complaint, the complainant elaborately narrated his hardships due to the deficient act of the opposite party. The opposite party denied all the allegations against him put forwarded by the complainant. The complainant produced the bill of Rs. 2,750/- which shows that the complainant has paid the amount to the opposite party “Cool Tech Engineers” as the repairing charges. In this case the complainant had given the fridge for repairing works on 18.10.2007. The opposite party returned the fridge only on 20.12.2007. The complainant had given the fridge for repairing in connection with his marriage. On that period he and his family had urgent need for the same. On 18.10.2007 itself the complainant paid Rs. 2000/- to the opposite party for the repairing charge. But the opposite party returned the fridge only on 20.12.2007. And also the opposite party and complainant were friends and neighbours. The opposite party was well aware of the need of the fridge on that occasion. The complainant and his age old mother even approached the opposite party requesting to return the refrigerator. From the pleadings and deposition of the complainant, we can understand the sufferings and difficulties he had to face. And moreover at the final stage of this proceedings the opposite party admitted his fault before this Forum and apologized for his deficient act which has caused hardships to the complainant. This opposite party has come before this Forum with an apology at the fag end of this proceedings. If the opposite party had settled the matter well in advance, the complainant would not have been forced to approach this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. In fact due to the deficient act of the opposite party, the complainant has been dragged to this Forum. Hence due to the delay caused by the opposite party by his irresponsible and lethargic attitude, the complainant should not be made to suffer. Hence the complaint is allowed. We find that the complainant has to be compensated for the same, for which we find an amount of Rs. 2500/- as reasonable compensation.

In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation towards mental pain and sufferings and also shall pay Rs. 1000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month, thereafter 9% annual interest shall be added to.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30^th January 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 34/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Lijin V.S

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of cash/credit bill dated 20.12.2007 for Rs. 2750/-

issued by the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT