KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:209/2002 JUDGMENT DATED.24..3..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Sansui Care Centre, Kitchen Appliances India Ltd., (Electronics Din), : APPELLANT 39/3655, Sahodaran Ayyappan Road, Near South over bridge, Kochi-682 016. (By Adv: Sri.George Cheriyan Karippapparambil) V. 1.P.Jayakumar, P.J.Vilas, Chettachel.P.O, Vithura, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695 551. (By Adv: Sri.Nemom V.Sajeev) : RESPONDENTS 2.United Electronics, M.G.Road, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695 001 (By Adv: Sri.P.A.Ahammed). JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant who is the 2nd opposite party has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2130/- with 16.5% interest from the date of the complaint being the amount realized from the complainant towards the cost of the spare parts and also to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost. The appellant has sought for setting aside the above order alleging defective reasoning and non application of mind by the Forum. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a San Sui TV from the 1st opposite party on 4..5..1999 and that the TV was having a warranty for 2 years, but the TV became defective on 27..4..2000. A Technician of the 2nd opposite party, the manufacturer attended only on 3..6..2000 and subsequently repaired the TV but charged Rs.2130/- mentioning that the same is towards the spare parts. Hence he has sought for realization of the above amount with compensation and cost. 3. Only the 2nd opposite party has contested the matter and filed version contenting that the TV got damaged due to heavy lightening and that the damages on account of natural calamities is excluded by the warranty conditions. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant and Exts.P1 to P4 and DW1 the Technician of the opposite party and Ext.D1 5. The Forum has doubted the veracity of the contention of the appellant that the TV got damaged due to lightening. Ext.D1 photocopy of the job card is the only objective piece of evidence produced in the matter. It is noted that there is over writings and additions of entries with different handwriting in Ext.D1. Further Ext.P3 the acknowledgement by the technician handed over to the complainant did not mention anything about the replacement of the spare parts. 6. On a consideration of the evidence adduced and the order of the Forum we find no scope for interference. Apart from the fact that Ext.D1 is only a photocopy containing corrections and over writings, the TV has been repaired after more than one month of reporting the damage. Evidently there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The fact that the complainant has not been issued with a copy of the job card or receipt for spares purchased also render suspicions the version of the appellant. In the circumstances we find no reason to disturb the findings of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
