BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 524/2001 filed on 26..12..2001
Dated: 15..12..2008
Complainant:
P.J. Kuttappan, T.C.3/321, (5)Muttada-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. G. Gopakumar)
Opposite party:
D. Balachandran, CRYOGENICS, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Service, opp. Head Post Office, Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. K. Madhavankutty)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30..07..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 01..11..2008, the Forum on 15..12..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The case of the complainant is that, he had entrusted his Godrej refrigerator on 30..09..2000 for repainting only and the opposite party did not return the same within the time stipulated. Moreover the refrigerator was not repainted also. Hence the complainant informed the Museum Police and by the timely intervention of the police the opposite party was forced to redeliver the refrigerator to the complainant on 26..06..2001. The refrigerator was not working well and on verification it was found that certain valuable parts have been removed from the refrigerator by the opposite party, causing a loss of more than five thousand rupees. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party and in response the opposite party promised to rectify the defects and to install the missing parts which the opposite party failed to comply as promised. Hence this complaint claiming compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party has filed his version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant has neither availed of any service from the opposite party for consideration nor has the complainant bought any goods from the opposite party for consideration. On 30..09..2000 the complainant voluntarily delivered the refrigerator to the opposite party's workshop for repairing. The cooling system of the refrigerator was not functioning properly due to the leakage of gas and the fridge was in ruined condition due to rough use and tampering made by the complainant and there was no door clamp or freezer door bush at the time of its delivery. After checking the complaints and defects in the fridge an amount of Rs.3,500/- was estimated as cost for repairing and informed the complainant on 30..09..2000 itself. But the complainant was not willing to pay any advance or take back the fridge from the workshop. The complainant forcebly kept the fridge in the godown of the workshop, without paying any amount for its repair. The complainant lodged a false complaint before the Museum Police Station and with the pressure of police the fridge was redelivered to the complainant as in wherein condition on the expense of the opposite party in the presence of the police for which the complainant had issued a receipt after verifying the fridge on 26..06..2001. It was noted in the receipt that a freezer door bush worth Rs.1/- and a door clamp worth Rs.4/- were the only missing parts found in the fridge, which were actually not there in the fridge when it was delivered on 30..09..2000. The functioning of the fridge has also been tested in the presence of the Police at the complainant's residence on 26..06..2001 and it was in a working condition. But the cooling system was not working properly due to the leakage of gas. It is only an after thought of the complaint about the missing parts worth Rs.5,000/-. He should have informed the Police at the time of delivery about the missing parts and should have framed a criminal case against the opposite party. Neither any instructions nor any advance amount for repairing the fridge or replacing the parts were given by the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party was ready and willing to do the necessary repairs as per the estimated amount but the complainant was not prepared to pay the advance amount. The complaint is baseless. The opposite party had not adopted any unfair or deceptive practice. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit. Exts.P1 to P6 are the documents marked on his side. Opposite party has also filed affidavit and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked on the part of the opposite party.
On the contentions raised, the following questions arise for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The allegation of the complainant is that he had entrusted his fridge to the opposite party for repainting only and since it was not returned in time, he had to obtain the assistance of Police for getting the refrigerator back. According to the opposite party, the refrigerator was not functioning properly due to leakage of gas and the fridge was ruined due to rough usage and tampering by the complainant and there were no door clamp or freezer door bush. The estimate towards repairing was arrived at Rs.3,500/- and the complainant neither paid any advance nor took back the fridge from the opposite party.
6. On contrary to the pleadings in the complaint, it is seen as per Ext.P1 that, the fridge has been entrusted for repairing and not for repainting only. This Ext.P1 reveals that the fridge had defects at the time of entrusting the same to the opposite party. Moreover as per it and Ext.D1 it can be seen that, the complainant has received the fridge on 25..06..2001, without freezer door bush and without lock clamp. Complainant has not raised any other complaints at that time. But as per the complaint, it is pleaded that certain valuable parts have been removed from the refrigerator by the opposite party for which the complainant has calculated an amount of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party has contended that at the time of delivery of the refrigerator on 30..09..2000 by the complainant to the opposite party
for repairing itself, the refrigerator was not functioning. Ext.P1 corroborates the same as the fridge is seen taken for repairing. The complainant's specific case is that he had entrusted it for repainting only. If that be so, then the same endorsement would definitely find a place in Ext.P1. At the time of re-delivery of the fridge in the presence of the Police, the complainant had the opportunity to check the functioning of the refrigerator. Ext.P2 proves that only lock clamp and freezer door bush were missing. If at all the complainant was not satisfied with the same, the other defects would also definitely be endorsed in Ext.P2, which accordingly is not there. Taking the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove his complaint and establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with ample evidence and hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is dismissed.
In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
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, on this the 15th day of December, 2008.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.524/2001 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Receipt for servicing dated 30..09..2000 P2 : Receipt dated 26..06..2001 P3 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 02..08..2001 P4 : Postal receipt No.1804 P5 : Acknowledgment card dated 06.08.2001 P6 : Copy of letter dated 13..08..2001 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Opposite party's witness : NIL
Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Photocopy of receipt dated 26.06.2001 D2 : " of letter issued by the oppoiste party to the complainant. D3 : " of advocate notice dated 02.08.2001 D3(a) : " of acknowledgement card D3(b) : " of postal receipt D4 : " of letter dated 04..08..2001 issued to the opposie party by the complainant.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
