O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows. The Onida(2100 Series Unique Collection) T.V purchased by the complainant for Rs.14,500/- on 03-09-1998 became defective and it was informed to a repairer by name Prakash on 10-04-10. Prakash came to complainant’s house, inspected the T.V and took the board of TV for repairing and promised to deliver it within three or four days. But after repeated demands, the board was brought to the complainant’s house after a lapse of 40 days. The opposite party assured that the board was repaired. The complainant told the opposite party to switch on the TV so as to check whether it is functioning or not. But TV was not working. Eventhough the opposite party opened the TV once again, the defect was not cured. The opposite party promised that he will come the next day and repair it. But till this date he has not turned up. The complainant alleged that the board fitted by the opposite party was not the original one. According to the complainant the mother board brought by the opposite party was small and very old. Hence the complainant filed complaint alleging deficiency in service. The complainant claimed Rs. 14,500/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost. The opposite party entered appearance but failed to file version hence set expartee. Points for consideration are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair practice on the part of opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence consits of deposition of the complainant. Point No.1 The complainant deposed that the opposite party took the board of his TV for repairing and returned another small, old board which was also not working. The complainant further deposed that he promised the service charges to the opposite party, if he returned complainant’s original board repaired . Eventhough the opposite party entered appearance, he chose not to contest the matter. So the allegations levelled against the opposite party remain unchallenged. Considering the deposition of the complainant we feel that the act of opposite party in not giving the actual board of the TV back and not repairing the entrusted board is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2. In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party will return the original board of the complainant’s TV failing which he will be liable to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant. The opposite party will also pay a compensation of Rs. 200/- and litigation cost of Rs.200/- to the complainant. This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of this order. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- Appendix Documents of the complainant Nil Documents of the opposite party Nil By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
