R.Vijayakumar, Member
This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking return of the camera or payment of its price Rs.11,000/- compensation Rs.5,000/- return of service charges Rs.1,850/- and costs.
(2)
The complainant’s case is that the camera which was entrusted to the opposite party for repair was not given back to the complainant even after repeated requests. At the first instance camera entrusted for repair was handed over to the complainant on 21/10/07 after receiving Rs.1,850/- as service charges and caused to believe the complainant that the camera was repaired and the complaints are rectified.
On 21.10.2007 itself the complainant realized that the opposite party had returned the camera without rectifying the defects. The complainant again entrusted the camera to the opposite party on 22.10.2007. At that time the opposite party had informed that the camera would be serviced without further charges and he had issued an acknowledgment bearing no.300 without mentioning the estimate date and due date.
From 25.10.2007 onwards the complainant had continuously approached the opposite party and enquired the matter. The opposite party had replied that the camera was sent to the head office of Camera Scan at Kottayam and advised the complainant to wait some more days for the delivery of the camera. Even though the complainant had approached the opposite parties and their staff for several time for getting back the camera even without repairing. But they had not given any satisfactory reply. The complainant sent Advocate notice. But no reply was received. The complainant is entitled to recover the price of the camera, service charges and cost of lawyer’s notice and hence the complaint.
The opposite party’s case is that the complainant had received back the camera in an unrepaired condition. The opposite party’s staff received the camera for the second time on 22.10.2007 and as per stringent demand of the complainant, it was given back on 22.11.2007. For the first time, the opposite
(3)
party had received the camera on 27.09.07. The statement that the complainant had entrusted the camera on 02.10.2007 is false and it was made intentionally. On inspection it was found that the main board and IC of the camera had been totally damaged due to the over supply of electricity. The complainant had admitted that he had connected the camera to a computer to see pictures. He had argued with the op staff that earthing was not necessary for a computer. As the repairing of main board and fixation of IC should have to be done with the specified equipments and those facilities are available only at the main shop of opposite party at Kottayam. The opposite party’s staff went to Kottayam main shop and the technicians there had fixed a new main board. The opposite party had charged Rs.1,600/- as the price of the main board and Rs.250/- as service charges.
On 22.10.2007, the complainant secondly approached the opposite party and informed that the camera is not working. On inspection it is found that the same mistake was repeated due to the excess power supply. The opposite party suggested some more time for rectification as the spare parts of camera are to be purchased by the opposite party from New Delhi and the complainant also agreed to the suggestion. The opposite party had issued an acknowledgment bearing no.300 dated: 22/10/2007. Contrary to the agreement that he will wait for some more time, the complainant approached the opposite party for getting back the camera. The opposite party’s staff informed him that they had already entrusted the camera to the main shop at Kottayam. The complainant again approached the opposite party. The opposite party’s staff contacted Kottayam main shop and the information got from Kottayam that Delhi distributors are considering the matter. The complainant shouted and demanded the return of camera and had stated that no further service was needed from opposite party. At the same time itself, the camera was returned to the complainant. But the acknowledgment was not
(4)
returned to the opposite party. The complaint is filed with ulterial motive. No unnecessary delay caused from the part of opposite party. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The opposite party institution is a reputed firm in this field. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit. He was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P4 marked.
From the side of opposite party’s DW1 & DW2 examined. Exts.D1 & D2 marked.
The points that would arise for consideration are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite
Party?
2. Compensation and cost
Points 1 & 2
Admittedly the camera was entrusted with the opposite party’s for repairing. The main contention in this complaint is that the opposite party had not returned the camera, even though the complainant had repeatedly requested for the return of the same even without repairing. According to the opposite party the camera was returned back to the complainant on 22.11.2007 in an unrepaired condition.
(5)
We have perused the documents. It is clear from Ext.P1 that camera was entrusted to opposite party by the complainant on 22.10.07. To counter the allegation and to prove that the camera has already been returned, the second opposite party had produced Ext.D1, the photocopy of job register page 19. The original of Ext.D1 was not produced. Ext.D1 has no authenticity and it is not admissible in evidence as it is a photocopy. Entries in Ext.D2 were made by the opposite party. More over, all these, as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant, the signatures in D1 & D2 has no resemblance. The entries in
D1 & D2 are unbelievable also.
The opposite party had stated in their version and learned counsel argued that the camera has been already returned to the complainant upon his stringent demanded. But the acknowledgment was not returned to the opposite party by the complainant. They had given back the camera on assurance that he will return the acknowledgment afterwards. These statements and arguments were not supported by any documentary evidence. As there is a solid documentary evidence to show that the camera was entrusted with opposite party’s on 22.10.2007 and as no evidence to prove the return of camera we have arrived at the interference that the camera has not been returned to the complainant.
The opposite party has stated in their version that when the camera was inspected by the opposite party for the first time they found that the board and IC of camera were damaged due to over supply of power from an unearthed computer and that the complainant had argued with the opposite party’s staff that the earthing was not necessary for a computer. While in the cross-examination the learned counsel for opposite party put the question that “over power ó¼¡ý •Ä® ˆ¬¡»ú¨ð —¡š¢´¡«? “computer ƒ« ˆ¬¡»ú𤻡ð¢ connect ¨ð®Ä¡ý —¡š¢´¤«”. It is
(6)
unbelievable that an Engineering Graduate working in the field of Information Technology had argued with the OP staff that earthing is not necessary for a computer.
The complainant had alleged in his complaint that there is deficiency in service from the first time itself his allegation is that the camera was returned unrepaired. While in cross-examination the learned counsel for opposite party put the question that “ camera ›¢¹¨ø ±œóû·¢¸¢µ¤ ˆ¡Ã¢©µ¡ ?. PW1 answered that “‚¿”. Repair ›¤ ›ýˆ¤©Ø¡þ memory card ƒ« computer Memory 𤫠Ģñ¢µ¤ ›ýˆ¤«. ˆ¬¡»ú »¡±Ä»¡Ã® repair ›¤ ›ýˆ¤¼Ä®. Card system ý ˆ¢Ð´¤©Ø¡þ ‡¡ÿ ˆ¤¼¢¿ …¼Ä¡Ã® problem. Repair ¨ð®Ä¤ Äñ¤©Ø¡þ ˆ¡û°¢¿¡¨Ä battery »¡±Ä»¢¶¡Ã® on ¨ð®Ä¤ ˆ¡Ã¢µÄ®. ˆ¡û°® ‚Ф©Ø¡þ ôñ¢ð¡ˆ¤« …¼¤ œúº¤; ôñ¢ð¡ð¢¿. ¨Ä¡¶Ð¤· ™¢óö« ˆ¡û°¤»¡ð¢ ¨¼® problem ©—¡Ú¬¨¸Ð¤·¢. In cross examination the opposite party had also admitted that “ repair ¨à¡ü 󡹤©Ø¡þ —¡×ú¢ complainant ¨› †ý¸¢µ¢¶¡Ã® 󡹤¼Ä”®.
The complainant had stated that the opposite party has not given information that the spare parts were distributed from New Delhi. The complainant has stated in his complaint that no reply was sent by the opposite party for the Advocate’s notice sent by the complainant. The opposite party deposed that he is not remembering whether the reply was sent or not. The attitude of opposite party its leads to the inference that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
Considering the above said circumstances, we came to the conclusion that, there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The complainant is entitled to get the price of camera, deducting depreciation. The points found accordingly.
(7)
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6, 000/- as the price of camera to return the service charges Rs.1, 850/- to pay compensation Rs.1,000/- and cost Rs.1,500/-.
The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order, in default it will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of complaint.
Dated this the 31st day of January 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Arun mohan
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Acknowledgment dated: 22/10/07
P2 - Legal Notice
P3 - Postal Receipt
P4 - Acknowledgment card
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Abi.K.George
DW2 - Dipu.R
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Job register 300 with pages 19 and 161
D2 - Acknowledgment books noted N0.202 & 300
