O R D E R<br /> <br /> Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)<br /> <br /> The complainant C.J. Francis has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. The facts of this complaint are the following:- The complainant had seen an advertisement of the opposite parties in the Malayala Manorama Daily dated 13.10.03 “Make your T.V new whatever its present condition service charge free, 20% discount for spare parts” by Onida T.V. Company, the complainant registered his complaint and the technicians from 1st opposite parties service centre came to the complainant’s house and repaired the T.V. After repairing, the T.V was working and he charged Rs.438/- as service charge. The next day the complainant when switched on the T.V, the T.V was not seen working. On that day, the technician who repaired the T.V came for collecting the repairing charges came to know the fault and he had taken the T.V. set to the service centre for proper checking. After somedays, the complainant enquired about the T.V., then they informed that they will bring it within two or three days. But they did not return the T.V. One day the technician telephoned and informed that the complaint is beyond repair and advised him to buy a new board costing Rs.2,900/-. But the complainant did not agree and he demanded for the return of the T.V and they did so. After some days, the complainant learned that some spare parts from the T.V. board has been removed by the technicians who repaired the T.V. The complainant sent a letter stating all these facts to the 1st opposite parties Kollam Service Centre. On the basis of the letter from the complainant, one person from Kollam Service Centre came and taken the T.V for repairing and fitted a new board and they collected Rs.1,558/- from the complainant. After fixing the new board the picture could not seen, then they said that it is due to the fault of dish antenna and stabilizer. Even after repairing the stabilizer and antenna, the T.V was not working properly. The complainant again approached the opposite parties service centre but they did not respond. After paying the price of the board and service charges, the complainant’s T.V was not working properly due to the deficiency of service from the technicians of opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting a new T.V. set or to get repaired the T.V set in proper condition and return the service charges received by the opposite party along with compensation for his mental agony and financial loss and cost of this proceedings. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a common version for him and on behalf of the 1st and 3rd opposite party stating the following contentions:- The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. The opposite parties admitted that the company had offered one-week free service camp during October 2003 with 20% discount on spare parts. As per the registration of the complainant’s T.V. complaint, the technicians attended his complaint and repaired the T.V. After two days, 2nd opposite party again came to the complainant’s house, then the complainant told that the T.V was not working, the 2nd opposite party opened the T.V in the presence of the complainant and told that the major parts of the board had became complaint and asked him to wait for some days for getting spare parts for repairing. The complainant was not ready for it and he demanded to refix the chasis back and they returned without repairing. After that complainant called Kollam Service Centre and requested for repairing the T.V. As per his request, one technician came and collected the T.V from complainant’s house to Kollam Service Centre. On 23.1.04 they repaired the chasis and refixed at customers residence and collected Rs.1,558/- after deducting service charge and 20% discount on spare parts. However, now they are ready to repair the T.V if it had any complaint, on chargeable basis provided he has to bring the set to their service centre. There is no deficiency of service from the part of them and they are canvassed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration in this complaint are the following:-<br /> (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?<br /> (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint?<br /> (3) Relief and Costs?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence adduced by the complainant’s authorised person who has been examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by him. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. <br /> <br /> 6. Point No.1:- The complainant availed service from the opposite parties after payment and the complainant is a consumer of opposite party and the dispute is regarding the deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.<br /> <br /> 7. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant’s authorised person has been examined as PW1. The authorisation letter produced is marked as Ext.A1. PW1 deposed that as per the advertisement seen in the Malayala Manorama Daily by the Onida Company, the complainant registered a complaint and the technicians from opposite parties came and repaired the T.V. The T.V worked only for one day and after that the T.V. become dead. The technicians from opposite parties come again and insisted him to change the board. But he did not agree that and sent a letter to Kollam Service Centre. The technicians from Kollam Service Centre came to his house and taken the T.V again for repairing and charged Rs.1,558/- as the price for new spare parts and service charges. The cash receipt dated 23.1.04 for Rs.1,558/- issued by the Onida Customer Relation Centre, Quilon produced is marked as Ext.A2. After all these repairing, the complainant’s T.V was not working. The complainant sent a letter to 1st opposite party stating all the facts and requested for getting the T.V repaired, otherwise he will take the legal actions against them. The copy of the letter dated 6.3.04 produced is marked as Ext.A3 and the postal receipt for the same is marked as Ext.A3(a). The complainant prays for granting a relief. <br /> <br /> 8. The opposite parties did not cross-examined PW1. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties technicians repaired his T.V several time but it is not still working. He has paid Rs.1,558/- as the repairing charges and price of the spare parts used. Even after this, the complainant’s T.V is not working. The complainant availed the service from the opposite parties by payment and hence there is a deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 11. According to the opposite parties, the complainant’s T.V is 13 years old and the spare parts of that model was not available and for changing the board, they have received Rs.1,558/-. Now they are ready to repair his T.V if the T.V had any problem on chargeable basis.<br /> <br /> 12. Complainant’s evidence shows that the complainant has paid Rs.1,558/- as the repairing charges of the T.V to the 2nd opposite party. But the complainant’s T.V was not yet properly repaired. After receiving the repairing charges from the complainant for repairing his T.V, the T.V was returned without proper repairing is a deficiency of service, which caused financial loss, mental agony and other inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get a relief. Therefore, the complainant’s prayer for getting the T.V repaired and the prayer for compensation can be allowable.<br /> <br /> 13. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed thereby the 2nd opposite party is directed either to repair the complainant’s T.V without any further charges within one month from the date of receipt of this order or to return the charges already received by them within one month and to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation along with an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost. If opposite parties are not repairing the T.V., the amounts so awarded will have to be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Declared in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C. Lathika Bhai <br /> (Member)<br /> <br /> Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) :<br /> Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) :<br /> Appendix:<br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant::<br /> PW1 : Francis. P.F<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:<br /> A1 : Authorisation letter dated 31.5.05 executed by the complainant <br /> in favour of Sri. Francis. P.F.<br /> A2 : Temporary Cash Receipt dated 23.1.2004 for Rs.1,558/- issued by Onida Customer <br /> Relation Centre, Quilon to the complainant.<br /> A3 : Photocopy of the letter dated 6.3.2004 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite <br /> party.<br /> A3(a) : Postal receipt. <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.<br /> <br /> (By Order)<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br />