Date of filing : 24-05-2010
Date of order : 25-05-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 123/2010
Dated this, the 25th day of May 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Abdulla,
S/o.Mahin, } Complainant
R/at Thalangara K.K. Puram,
Po.Thalangara, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(In Person)
M/s Angel Techno Services, Pvt. Ltd, } Opposite party
T.P.418,P/R, K.T.P.Building,
South Bazar, Kannur.
(Adv.P.Venugopalan Nair, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
That the complainant entrusted his Panasonic Television set to the opposite party for repair on 10-02-2009 through their authorized agent. While taking the TV for repair the opposite party assured the complainant that the TV set would be repaired and returned within one month. After one month the authorized agent brought back the TV set claiming that the defect was rectified. But the TV set was not functioning properly. Then as suggested by the said agent the complainant purchased a set of new speaker from the local market and the agent replaced it with the old one. But the TV set did not work. Therefore the said agent took back the TV set to the office of the opposite party telling that he would bring it back after proper service shortly. But despite repeated demands the TV set was not returned back so far. Meanwhile the complainant went abroad and from there also he contacted opposite party through telephone. But each time the opposite party offered some lame excuses for the laches on the part of the opposite party. Therefore on 10-02-2010 the complainant issued registered notice to the opposite party through his lawyer calling upon the opposite party to return the TV set. But he did not return the TV set so far. Hence the complainant is filed for necessary relief alleging deficiency in service against opposite party.
2. The complaint was taken on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party duly served the notice and appeared through their counsel and version filed.
3. The opposite party admits that the complainant entrusted the TV set to them on 10-02-2009. But they denied all other allegations made against them. The opposite party submits that in the initial stage itself the opposite party informed the complainant that the repairing of the CTV Panasonic is impossible since the production of a particular IC bearing No.M52317 SP is stopped by the manufacturer and that IC is necessary for repairing the CTV Panasonic of the complainant and the TV set is an old one and used for more than 7 years. The complainant after fully understanding the defects of the CTV Panasonic take back the same and entrusted to some unauthorized repairers and it caused many other defects for which the opposite party is not at all liable.
4. The opposite party taken another contention that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. the Manufacturer is not made party.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts A1 to A3 documents. The complainant was cross-examined by the counsel opposite party. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
6. After considering the evidence and on perusal of documents the following points raised for consideration.
1) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3) If so what is the relief?
7 The first issue raised by the opposite party is the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e the manufacturer of Panasonic CTV is not made as party.
8. As per the opinion and decisions of various appellate courts it is not mandatory to made the manufacturer as party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The first issued is answered accordingly.
9. The specific case of the complainant is that he entrusted the TV set for repair but it was not returned to him so far. But the opposite party is not admitting the above fact. According to opposite party the complainant has entrusted the TV once for repair and the opposite party returned the same saying that the TV set is an old one and the manufacturer stopped the production of IC which is essential for repairing the complainant’s TV and the opposite party returned the TV set without repairing it. Hence the complainant has not produced any document to show that when the TV was purchased and from where, what is the warranty period etc. On cross-examination the complainant deposed that the TV was purchased about 5 years back. Moreover, on perusal Ext.A1 it is clear that opposite party has got the habit of passing receipts to the customers while repairing their materials for repair. Here there is no document produced by complainant to show that the complainant entrusted the TV to opposite party during second time. On considering the above circumstances we can not accept the plea of complainant that the TV is entrusted to the opposite party for repair during second time.
10. Hence we have not seen any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is not entitled any relief sought against opposite party.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 10-02-2009 receipt issued by opposite party.
A2. 10-02-2010 copy of lawyer notice.
A3. Postal acknowledgement card.
PW1. Abdulla.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
