BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT: SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 299/2009 Dated: 27..02..2010 Complainant: Geetha Joseph, T.C.11/2104, Navinadarsh, D-21, Kanaka Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party: Jayasankar. S.S., Proprietor, Nanotech Electronics, Kamal Building, TC.28/1571, Thakaraparambu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)
This O.P having been heard on 18..02..2010, the Forum on 27..02..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had entrusted a Panasonic Digital Cordless Telephone for repairing at the opposite party's shop on 7/10/2009. The opposite party in turn gave a visiting card with Article Receipt No.1536. The opposite party had promised to deliver the article at complainant's house after making repairs. But the opposite party informed the complainant that the equipment is not in a repairable condition and he will return it at the complainant's house. Accordingly on 10/10/2009 the opposite party dropped a parcel, wrapped in a plastic cover at the house of the complainant. But on verification the complainant found that the handset returned was not the same as the unit entrusted to the opposite party. It is of a different model. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party with the instrument and informed him of the difference in equipment. Eventhough the opposite party promised the complainant to trace the original handset of the telephone equipment, he has not cared to do so. Hence a notice dated 15/10/2009 to the effect was sent to the opposite party describing all the facts. A reply notice was issued dated 26/10/2009 containing only false allegations. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.
2. The opposite party remains exparte.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. The handset in dispute along with the original base unit is produced and marked as MO1. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence her affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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 a handset was entrusted to the opposite party for repair and that was not repaired and besides that the opposite party did not return the original handset entrusted to them instead they returned some other handset. Ext. P1 is the visiting card of the opposite party wherein No.1536 has been written which according to the complainant is the article receipt number. Eventhough the opposite party remains exparte in this case, the complainant has produced a reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant's lawyer's notice, admitting the entrustment of a Panasonic Digital Cordless Telephone for repair on 7/10/2009 by the complainant. Hence there is no dispute regarding the entrustment of the phone to the opposite party by the complainant.
6. Complainant has alleged that the handset returned by the opposite party to her is not the one actually entrusted to them by her and so the handset is not matching with that of the original base unit and it has become useless. For proving the same, the complainant has produced the MO1, which consists of a base unit and a handset. The owner's manual produced by the complainant reveals the model No. of the complainant's phone as KX-TG 7100BX and the model number of the base unit produced matches with that of the one mentioned in the owner's manual. But the model number of the handset is not matching with that of the base unit produced before us and the manual. From the above it is clearly evident that the handset and the base unit do not belong to the same model. The model number of the handset is KX-TGA 710CX but that of the base unit is KX-TG 7100 BX. The model numbers are very well printed on each equipment. So prima facie it could be found that both belong to different models. In such a circumstance, no expert evidence is required to ascertain the same. The complainant has filed an affidavit in support of her complaint. The complainant, PW1, has not been cross examined by the opposite party and hence her sworn statement stands uncontroverted. In the above circumstance, we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint. The prayer of the complainant is either to return the original handset or to give a new model. PW1 has deposed that if the above prayers are not allowable, she may be refunded the price of the phone. Ext. P4 is the cash invoice of the cordless Panasonic phone wherein the amount has been mentioned. 7. From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint against the opposite party. The complainant who has contested the case in person has been dragged to the Forum for redressal of her grievance caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The act of the opposite party in not returning the original handset entrusted to them by the complainant definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. By taking into consideration the mental agony, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings and other injustice suffered by the complainant we allow Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall either return the original handset of the complainant bearing model No.KX-TG 7100 BX and on compliance of the same the opposite party can take the handset produced before the Forum by the complainant and the complainant can take back the base unit from the Forum. OR the opposite party shall give a new phone of the same model to the complainant and can take back MO1 from the Forum. OR the opposite party shall refund Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.
The opposite party shall also pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. The entire amount shall carry interest @ 9%, if not paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
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 27th day of February, 2010.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No. 299/2009
APPENDIX
1. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Geetha Joseph
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of the visiting card of the opposite party. P2 : " advocate notice dated 15/10/2009. P3 : " advocate notice dated 26/10/2009.
P4 : " of cash invoice dated 01/03/2008.
P5 : Brochure of Panasonic operating instruction.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
Court Exhibit:
MO1 : Handset
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT: SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 299/2009 Dated: 27..02..2010 Complainant: Geetha Joseph, T.C.11/2104, Navinadarsh, D-21, Kanaka Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite party: Jayasankar. S.S., Proprietor, Nanotech Electronics, Kamal Building, TC.28/1571, Thakaraparambu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)
This O.P having been heard on 18..02..2010, the Forum on 27..02..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had entrusted a Panasonic Digital Cordless Telephone for repairing at the opposite party's shop on 7/10/2009. The opposite party in turn gave a visiting card with Article Receipt No.1536. The opposite party had promised to deliver the article at complainant's house after making repairs. But the opposite party informed the complainant that the equipment is not in a repairable condition and he will return it at the complainant's house. Accordingly on 10/10/2009 the opposite party dropped a parcel, wrapped in a plastic cover at the house of the complainant. But on verification the complainant found that the handset returned was not the same as the unit entrusted to the opposite party. It is of a different model. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite party with the instrument and informed him of the difference in equipment. Eventhough the opposite party promised the complainant to trace the original handset of the telephone equipment, he has not cared to do so. Hence a notice dated 15/10/2009 to the effect was sent to the opposite party describing all the facts. A reply notice was issued dated 26/10/2009 containing only false allegations. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.
2. The opposite party remains exparte.
3. Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. The handset in dispute along with the original base unit is produced and marked as MO1. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence her affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice 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 a handset was entrusted to the opposite party for repair and that was not repaired and besides that the opposite party did not return the original handset entrusted to them instead they returned some other handset. Ext. P1 is the visiting card of the opposite party wherein No.1536 has been written which according to the complainant is the article receipt number. Eventhough the opposite party remains exparte in this case, the complainant has produced a reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant's lawyer's notice, admitting the entrustment of a Panasonic Digital Cordless Telephone for repair on 7/10/2009 by the complainant. Hence there is no dispute regarding the entrustment of the phone to the opposite party by the complainant.
6. Complainant has alleged that the handset returned by the opposite party to her is not the one actually entrusted to them by her and so the handset is not matching with that of the original base unit and it has become useless. For proving the same, the complainant has produced the MO1, which consists of a base unit and a handset. The owner's manual produced by the complainant reveals the model No. of the complainant's phone as KX-TG 7100BX and the model number of the base unit produced matches with that of the one mentioned in the owner's manual. But the model number of the handset is not matching with that of the base unit produced before us and the manual. From the above it is clearly evident that the handset and the base unit do not belong to the same model. The model number of the handset is KX-TGA 710CX but that of the base unit is KX-TG 7100 BX. The model numbers are very well printed on each equipment. So prima facie it could be found that both belong to different models. In such a circumstance, no expert evidence is required to ascertain the same. The complainant has filed an affidavit in support of her complaint. The complainant, PW1, has not been cross examined by the opposite party and hence her sworn statement stands uncontroverted. In the above circumstance, we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint. The prayer of the complainant is either to return the original handset or to give a new model. PW1 has deposed that if the above prayers are not allowable, she may be refunded the price of the phone. Ext. P4 is the cash invoice of the cordless Panasonic phone wherein the amount has been mentioned. 7. From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her complaint against the opposite party. The complainant who has contested the case in person has been dragged to the Forum for redressal of her grievance caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The act of the opposite party in not returning the original handset entrusted to them by the complainant definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. By taking into consideration the mental agony, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings and other injustice suffered by the complainant we allow Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall either return the original handset of the complainant bearing model No.KX-TG 7100 BX and on compliance of the same the opposite party can take the handset produced before the Forum by the complainant and the complainant can take back the base unit from the Forum. OR the opposite party shall give a new phone of the same model to the complainant and can take back MO1 from the Forum. OR the opposite party shall refund Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.
The opposite party shall also pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. The entire amount shall carry interest @ 9%, if not paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
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 27th day of February, 2010.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No. 299/2009
APPENDIX
1. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Geetha Joseph
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of the visiting card of the opposite party. P2 : " advocate notice dated 15/10/2009. P3 : " advocate notice dated 26/10/2009.
P4 : " of cash invoice dated 01/03/2008.
P5 : Brochure of Panasonic operating instruction.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
Court Exhibit:
MO1 : Handset
PRESIDENT
| | HONORABLE President, President | HONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | | 
