DATE OF FILING: 01.08.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 162/2011
Between
Complainant : E.K.Shaji,
Edasseril House,
Udumbannoor P.O,
Udumbannoor,
Idukki District.
And
Opposite Party : Joseph Munjanattu,
ROYAL,
The Complete Family Shop,
Munjanattu Royal Towers,
Thodupuzha P.O,
Idukki District.
(By Advs:K.M.Sanu & Prince.J.Pananal
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
The complainant had purchased a Bright light from the opposite party for Rs.1,250/-. The light was purchased in January 2008. At the time of purchase, the opposite party offered 90 years warranty and free servicing. The complainant is an agriculturist. For the sake of his cultivation from the disturbance of wild animals, he used this light. The opposite party offered 8 hours functioning of the torch after recharge, but the complainant submitted that after recharging, the light is working only for 1 hour. After that the light became switched off. Showing this defect complainant had given the light to the opposite party's shop. The opposite party agreed to repair the same and said that it was the defect of the battery, they offered to service it. The complainant entrusted the light to the opposite party in July 2008. Many times he enquired about it but it was not returned after service. Still now the light is under their custody. Alleging deficiency of service against the opposite party, the petitioner filed this petition before the Forum.
2. The opposite party filed written version. In the written version, the opposite party contented that the matter is not maintainable because of time limitation. They agreed the transaction with the complainant. The torch was manufactured by Bright Light company and is providing warranty to the torch. The disputed torch was entrusted to the opposite party for repairing. The battery charge not retaining is the complaint of the torch. The opposite party had produced the torch to the servicing centre of the company and repaired the same. The opposite party had informed the matter to the complainant in the given mobile number, but the mobile number given the reply “switched off”. So the opposite party cannot inform the matter to the complainant. The opposite party in the written version stated that they have done the repairing work at the earliest time itself, but the complainant was out of station, that is why he did not attempt to collect the thing. As a part of stock clearness, the opposite party disposed the torch after two years. The opposite party again submitted that the complainant never approached the opposite party before April 2011. Hence the written version of the opposite party point out the irresponsible character of the complainant and the time limitation of the complaint.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence produced by both parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced a Job card of the opposite party, it mentions the complaint of torch. The opposite party in the written version stated that they repaired the torch and informed the complainant in many times, but no evidence to show the fact is true. The opposite party submitted that they had disposed the torch. Complainant entrusted the torch to the opposite party on 26.07.2008, that is mentioned in the job card. The complainant said that he enquired about it in many times, but there is no documentary evidence for the same. In the course of proceedings the opposite party admitted to settle the matter. The learned counsel for the opposite party had submitted the same. The complainant had entrusted it for repairing but the opposite party had disposed the same without the consent of the complainant. So we find service deficiency in this aspect. What prevented the opposite party to send a letter to the complainant for receiving the same, if the telephone number given was not working. So the opposite party is entitled to pay for the same. As per the complainant he had enquired about the torch several times and he had suffered a lot because his cultivation was destroyed by the wild animals because of the non-availability of the torch. So we think that the opposite party should compensate for the same and we fix Rs.500/- as compensation for the same.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,250/-, the price of torch to the complainant within 15 days. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2011
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
APPENDIX : Nil
