IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.32/09 Between: K.C. Chacko, Kurunthayil Veedu, Iraviperoor.P.O., Iraviperoor Village, Pin – 689 542. (By Adv. R. Muraleedharan) ..... Complainant. And: Reji, Proprietor, City Electronics, T.K. Road, Eraviperoor. ..... Opposite party. O R D E RSri. Jacob Stephen (President): This complaint is against the deficiency in service of the opposite party who is a refrigerator mechanic. 2. The complainant’s case is that the complainant entrusted his refrigerator with the opposite party on 30.12.08 for repairing. On 7.10.2008 the opposite party returned the fridge after the repairs and collected Rs.3,000/- as repairing charges. Even after the said repairs the fridge shows complaints. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party who came to the complainant’s house on 4.12.2008 and took the fridge to his shop for further repairing. Thereafter opposite party has not returned the fridge irrespective of the complainant’s repeated demands. The above said acts of the opposite party caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to return the fridge in working condition within a stipulated time or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-, the value of the fridge, and to return Rs.3,000/- already received by the opposite party and to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this proceedings. 3. Opposite party’s contention against the complainant’s allegations is as follows:- He admitted that the fridge entrusted by the complainant was repaired and returned. He had also given a bill for Rs.3,000/- with a written warranty for two years. Out of the bill amount, the complainant had paid only Rs.1,000/- and the complainant failed to pay the balance amount by saying one or other reasons. Thereafter the complainant informed him that the fridge is not working. So he had taken back the fridge again for testing its efficiency and he kept the fridge in his shop for two days in a switched on position and found that the fridge has no complaints as alleged by the complainant. Then he asked the complainant to take back the fridge from the shop after paying the balance repairing charges. But the complainant has not turned up to pay the balance amount or to take back the fridge. According to the opposite party, the complainant’s intention is to sell the fridge. In the meantime 4 or 5 persons visited opposite party’s shop for purchasing the fridge as per the instructions of the complainant and the sale was not effected because the price demanded by the complainant is not reasonable. Intention behind this complaint is to avoid the payment of balance repairing charges and to compel the opposite party for selling the fridge. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service from his part and he prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In this case, the complainant and the opposite party adduced oral evidence as PW1 and DW1. The complainant also adduced two documents, which are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the bill No.2272 dated 7.10.2008 for Rs.3,000/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is a report dated 19.5.2009 given by one Gigi John Mathew, a member of Eraviperoor Grama Panchayat. The marking of Ext.A2 is opposed by the opposite party and it was marked subject to proof. For the opposite party, there is no documentary evidence. 5. The only question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. 6. On the basis of the contentions of the parties we have perused the entire materials on record. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party has failed to rectify the complaints of the complainant’s fridge and it was not returned so far. According to the opposite party, there is no complaint to the fridge as alleged by the complainant and he is ready to return the fridge if the complainant pay the balance repairing charges. He also admitted that the fridge is with him. In this case, both parties have not adduced any cogent evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. But the opposite party deposed before this Forum as follows:- “In«m\pÅ ]Ww In«nbnsænepw {^nUvPv ISbn \n¶v sImpt]mIm³ lÀÖnI£nsb \nÀt±in¡Ww”. This shows that the opposite party is not insisting for the balance payment and he is ready to give the fridge to the complainant. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party is not giving back the fridge. Since opposite party is ready to return the same to the complainant, the complainant is at liberty to take back the fridge ensuring its working condition. 7. In the circumstances, this complaint is disposed as follows:- The opposite party is directed to return the fridge to the complainant in working condition as and when the complainant approaches the opposite party. In the circumstance no cost and compensation. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of August, 2009. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : K.C. Chacko Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Bill No.2272 dated 7.10.2008 for Rs.3,000/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Report dated 19.5.2009 given by one Gigi John Mathew, a member of Eraviperoor Grama Panchayat. Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 : Rejimon. M.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) K.C. Chacko, Kurunthayil Veedu, Iraviperoor.P.O.,Iraviperoor Village, Pin – 689 542. (2) Reji, Proprietor, City Electronics, T.K. Road, Eraviperoor. (3) The Stock File.
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
