This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of theConsumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs 6000/- as price of the cooler and Rs 10000/- as compensation.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows. The complainant contacted opposite party to repair his Videocon Little Cooler . It was Videocon Service Centre who gave telephone no. to contact opposite party Decan Associates . Complainant talked to the person who attended the phone and told him about the huge sound occurring in the Cooler while working. The technician attended the phone then promised to come to his house . After 3-4 days one technician named Ratheesh came to his house and tried to repair the cooler by removing its back cover. When he attempted to to the repair work the part supplying wind by rotating motion broken due to his negligence. If he was an experienced technician that damage would not have happened.Then he told him that the broken part wanted to be replaced and he will come with the same to get the cooler repaired within few days. The complainant believed him and collected his mobile no. in order to contact him further. Thereafter complainant contacted Decan Associates and technician 4 to 5 times but the answer from the technician was only “ spare parts not available’ When again contacted Decan Associates he got the answer that the person who knows the technician to say about spare parts and repair has gone out.. The complainant lost trust since the technician has not been turned up even after one month. He believes he is cheated . As an old man he is very much disappointed and suffered mental agony upon the incident . This damage that made the cooler useless due to the ignorance and negligence of the technician. Hence this complaint for an amount of Rs 6000/- as price of the cooler and Rs 10000/- as compensation for mental agony.<br /> The opposite party filed version contending the following. The complainant never hired any service of the opposite party since no remunerable service is rendered by the opposite party. The complainant also has no allegation that the opposite party received any remuneration. The allegation of the complainant that the inner part of the cooler was broken while repairing due to the carelessness of opposite party is not true because opposite party was trying to find out the actual defect of the cooler , which was already defective. It is not fair to say that a defective material made defective by opposite party. Moreover the cooler was very old and Videocon company stopped its production 1999 onwards. Spare parts are not available in the market. Above all opposite party is not the dealer of the Videocon products. On examination the technician found that the blower of the cooler was solely broken due to the oldness and continuous service. Sound produced by cooler is due to vibration of cracked blower and the said vibration made the condition of the blower very bad to worse. The opposite party conveyed the complainant about the scarcity and non availability of the spare parts. The opposite party is ready to repair if the complainant makes available the spare parts. The technician of the opposite party has been working as air cooler technician for the last more than 4 years. There is no report of any complaint till date except this one. Air cooler has no with much price of Rs 6000/-. Moreover complainant was explained and convinced that it is difficult to repair the cooler since the sapre parts has not been available.<br /> The main point to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.<br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and oral testimony of DW1.<br /> Irt is an admitted factr that cooler of the complainant became defective and the technician of opposite party visited the house of the complainant in order to repair the same. The technician tried to repair the cooler . Complainant’s case is that the inner parts of the cooler was broken by the technician. Opposite party says that he was trying to find out the real defect of the cooler. Sound produced by the cooler is due to the vibration of cracked blower and the vibration made the condition of the blower bad to worse. In the cross examination the technician stated “<br /> <br /> <br /> No doubt sound is produced due to some defects. After reporting defect the only technician who examined the cooler is the one technician sent by the opposite party. If the statement of technician is wrong that has to be proved by evidence. It is not proved that the technician was unfit for repairing such work. Secondly he has deposed that “<br /> <br /> <br /> . The statement was not challenged. In the cross examination complainant stated thus.”<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The above statement makes it clear that the cooler is very old and it is very difficult to get the spare parts. Opposite party in his version stated that he could realize that the cooler was one which the production was stopped by Videocon before 8 years. This statement also was not challenged. It can be very well assumed the repair work cannot be carried out if the spare parts are not available. It is also notable that no attempt were made on the part of the complainant to make available the spare parts.One thing is certain that the opposite party has no need or gets any benefits by breaking the spare parts while doing repair. In the usual course of dealings a technician will not break or make damage the spare parts of the goods which he repairs since it adversely affects his profession. What was the real condition of the cooler when the technician was handling it, is not certain. Without an expert opinion it is not possible to determine the cooler was damaged due to the negligent act of the opposite party or not. No such attempt were made by the complainant to bring sufficient evidence to come into a conclusation that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has expressed his readiness to repair the cooler provided the spare parts is available. The complainant has not made any enquiry whether it is available or not. Complainant was not sure of its price also. In cross examination PW1 deposited that “ <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant do not know what exactly the price of the cooler was. The complainant is not able to prove what he has pleaded. It has also to be taken into consideration that the technician was called for repairing a faulty cooler. It means cooler was faulty even before the examination of the technician. Since it was faulty the question of availability of spare parts existed even before the entry of technician in picture. The complainant has failed to prove his pleadings with sufficient evidence without which opposite party cannot be held liable for the deficiency in service. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this, the 30th day of July 2008<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br />