judgements Fort Road,Kasaragod consumer case(CC) No. C.C.53/2006
K.V.Chirukandan
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
K.V.Vinod
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
D.o.F: 28/4/06 D.o.O:07/8/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.53/06 Dated this, the 07th day of August 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER K.V.Chirukandan, S/o Ambu, Oari,Kaithakkad Po, : complainant Kasaragod. K.V. Vinod, S/o Kottan, Proprietor, Super Cool, Oarimukku, : Opposite party Kaithakkad PO, Kasaragod. ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ ; PRESIDENT: Shortly stated the case of the Chirukandan is as follows:- Chirukandan entrusted his old refrigerator for repair with Vinod the opposite party herein Vinod fixed Rs.500/- as repair charge. There after Vinod demanded Rs.1200/- towards the purchase of new stabilizer. The said amount is also paid. But the refrigerator is not so far repaired. Hence the complaint claiming Rs.8000/- as purchase value of the fridge and Rs.1700/- Chirukandan paid to the Vinod and Rs.3000/- as compensation. 2. According to Vinod the repair charge was fixed as Rs.900/- and Chirukandan only paid Rs.400/-, the balance was promised to pay at the time of taking back the refrigerator. Since stabilizer is necessary to function the fridge. The purchase of new stabilizer necessitated. The repair works were carried out. Thereafter, nearly one year later Chirukandan approached Vinod. On examination it was found that the fridge is not working due to keeping it idle for one year and the compressor was not functioning and the gas in the pipe was found empty. Vinod further demanded Rs.1500/- towards the repair charge . Chirukandan then assured to bring the sum. Therefore the defects were rectified. But the complainant did not turn up as assured. Chirukandan came after one month. Then Vinod demanded Rs.2000/- towards the repair charges. Then Chirukandan scoldedVinod and hesitated to take back the refrigerator. The complaint is barred by limitation since the entrustment of the refrigerator was in the year 1998. According to complainant the entrustment was in 2004. 3. Chirukandan examined as PW1 and Vinod examined as DW1. No documents were marked on either side. 4. The entrustment of refrigerator for repair is admitted by both parties. According to Vinod eventhough the Fridge was repaired in time, Chirukandan was not ready to take it back after repair. Further the stabilizer was purchased after 2 years. Thereafter when tried the fridge was not found working. Again it was repaired and when demanded repair charge Chirukandan was not willing to pay . Now the fridge is kept in the house of Vinod since he has closed the repair center. Eventhough one Kannan was sent to Chirukandan asking to take back the fridge , Chirukandan was not willing. 5. A person who opens a service center impliedly undertakes that he is willing and ready to do the works entrusted to him. But in this case eventhough the refrigerator was repaired, the complainant was not ready to take back the fridge perhaps may be owing to the huge repair charges. As everybody know that a second hand fridge is fetch below Rs.1000/- in the market. In the aforesaid circumstances we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 6. In the circumstances we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Therefore we direct Vinod to return the refrigerator to Chirukandan on proper receipt and to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to Chirukandan towards the cost of these proceedings. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/
