BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.137/2007 against C.C.No.311/2006, Dist.Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
Sri K.Ananda Pillai,
S/o.Sri Krishna Swamy Pillai,
Aged about : 61 years,
Occ:Private Employee, Indian,
R/o.H.No.:32-70/2A, Bank Colony,
R.K.Puram Post, Secunderabad. …Appellant/
Complainant
And
M/S.MUSICANA,
Electronics & Watch Centre,
7-1-941, Rashtrapathi Road,
Secunderabad ,
Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Vijay. … Respondent/
Opp.party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.Visewesara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent :
CORAM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.311/2006 on the file of Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, attracted by the representations of the personnel of the opposite party shop, the complainant purchased a DVD player and he was informed that the DVD player is a standard one and they could watch the telugu/tamil and any other films as desired by his wife. The complainant submits that he purchased the subject DVD player on 31.12.2004 for Rs.4,500/- with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The DVD player started giving troubles immediately after four days of the purchase and though the complainant informed about the said defects , the opposite party did not rectify any of the defects and DVD player was giving disturbances while watching Tamil songs and while watching Tamil films, the DVD player was totally disturbed and they could not watch anything. By March 2005, the entire system was not working at all and when the complainant contacted the opposite party he was asked to bring the DVD to their shop and the complainant further submits that he left the item with the opposite party, as requested, to rectify the defects. After one month, the complainant was informed that one of the main components of the DVD had to be replaced immediately and this part had to be brought from Mumbai but the opposite party kept on postponing the replacement of the said component. Finally the complainant was informed by Mr.Vijay of opposite party during December,2005 that one of their mechanics had accidentally left the plug of the electric connection of the DVD player and it got burnt and the complainant kept the DVD with the opposite party for nearly 7 months on the pretext of repairing it. When the complainant requested for refund of Rs.4,500/-, the opposite party tried to convince the complainant that 50% of the cost of the DVD player should be borne by him. The complainant submits that he spoke several times during this period of 7 months to the opposite party and thereafter showed the said DVD player to the other mechanic who informed him that the DVD player is not a genuine one. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 10.3.2006 but did not receive any reply. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.4,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 31.12.2004 till the date of payment, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and to pay costs of Rs.5000/- .
The opposite party filed counter stating that he is only a dealer of electronic goods but not the manufacturer and admitted that the complainant purchased the DVD player for Rs.4,500/- on 31.12.2004 and contend that the bill issued by them for the said purchase states that there is no exchange or no return or no guarantee. He denies that the complainant has given the DVD to him and he had kept it with him for 7 months. The complainant had only approached in the year 2006 with the DVD player in dead condition and he also denied that he offered to refund 50% of the cost of the DVD player.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to establish that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased the DVD player on 31.12.2004. It is the complainant’s case that after four days of purchase, the DVD player started giving trouble and in March 2005 the entire system stopped working and that he brought the DVD player to the opposite party shop and he was informed that the component which has to be replaced has to be got from Mumbai and there after in December,2005 he was informed that the entire DVD is burnt. It is the complainant’s case that the opposite party kept the DVD with them for 7 months without rectification and inspite of repeated requests there was no response from the opposite party either to rectify the defects or refund the amount. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant never approached him with the defective DVD player but only in March 2006 he approached the opposite party with the DVD player in totally dead condition and opposite party also denies that they ever offered to refund 50% of the cost of the DVD and also denied that the complainant approached them prior to March 2006. While the purchase of DVD player from the opposite party is not in dispute the main point for consideration is whether there is any evidence on behalf of the complainant to establish that he had given the DVD to the opposite party for repairs ? The opposite party in para 3 of their counter admits that they have provided services to the complainant free of cost for a period of one year. When the opposite party himself admitted that they have provided the services to the complainant free of cost for a year and that the DVD player was purchased on 31.12.2004, the contention of the opposite party that the DVD player was never brought to them prior to the month of March 2006 is unsustainable. In their counter also, the opposite party never acknowledged the receipt of the legal notice and only said that after March 2006 the complainant left the shop refusing to pay the service charges and later they received notice from the Consumer Forum, whereas perusal of Exhibits show that Ex.A4 is acknowledgement of legal notice dt.16.3.2006. The complainant in his affidavit submits that the opposite party offered to bear 50% of the cost. The same was stated in the legal notice also which remained un controverted by the opposite party since they did not receive any reply. Taking into consideration that the opposite party had provided services to the said DVD player for a period of one year which still establishes that the complainant had approached the opposite party several times for repairs and taking into consideration that the DVD player was under warranty during that period and also that the opposite party never replied to the legal notice and did not acknowledged receipt of it in their counter clearly establishes that the complainant did approach the opposite party for repair of the DVD Player and we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.3000/- by taking back the defective DVD player, taking into consideration that the complainant had used the DVD player for a couple of months together with compensation of Rs.1000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- .
In the result this appeal is allowed in part, order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to refund Rs.3000/- by taking back the defective DVD player and to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and costs of Rs.1000/- .
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt. 18.1.2010
Pm*
