O R D E R.
By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 12 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The case of the Complainant is that on 12-11-2018 the Complainant approached Opposite Party for repairing the HP monitor ( SG .3620 I.L. S/G INA 90 200 Yz17 TFT Monitor S/G CNG 8432132) which had been possessed and used by him. Considering the assurance given by the Opposite Party the Complainant entrusted the HP Monitor to the Opposite Party on 12/11/2018 for repair. At the time of entrusting the monitor to the Opposite Party for repair, the Opposite Party collected Rs. 1,000/- as advance service charge from the Complainant and issued a service slip which was signed by him. The Opposite Party assured that the defect would be rectified within 15 days. After 15 days, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party several times and asked to return the repaired monitor but the Opposite Party did not turn to return the repaired monitor saying one or another excuses. At last, on 02-03-2019 when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, he told that the monitor was lost from his custody. The opposite party was not ready to pay the price of the Monitor lost from his possession and he threatened the complainant. The act of the Opposite Party is deficiency of service. The complainant prayed for return of the Monitor and rupees 1,000/- the opposite party collected as advance cost of repair. If the opposite party could not return the Monitor, he was liable to pay the actual present market rate of the Monitor, and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,000 towards the cost of the complaint.
3. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party. Notice was unserved with an endorsement ‘addressee left’ without instruction. The Complainant took steps by filing an application for issue of notice to the Opposite Party by substitute service by way of paper publication. Accordingly the publication was allowed and notice was issued to the Opposite Party through paper publication. In spite of publishing the notice in the paper the Opposite Party did not appear before the Commission. Therefore the Opposite Party was set ex-parte on 15/12/2021.
4. Considering the complaint and documents, following points were raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?
2. If so what is the relief and cost
5. In order to prove the case of the Complainant, the Power of Attorney holder of the Complainant filed Proof Affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Exts A1 to A3 were marked. Ext. A1 is the retail invoice, Ext.A2 is the service slip issued by the Opposite Party and Ext. A3 is the Power of Attorney executed by the Complainant in favour of PW1.
6. Point No.1& 2:- While going through the Proof Affidavit of PW1, we could see that for the Complainant, his brother purchased HP Monitor on 13/02/2009 by paying an amount of Rs.25,300/-. Ext.A2 is the service slip dated 12/11/2018 issued by the Opposite Party, which shows that the Complainant handed over his Monitor to the Opposite Party for rectifying its defects, for which Opposite Party has collected a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The PW1 in his Affidavit deposed that when the Monitor became defective he approached Opposite Party to rectify its defects. Though the Opposite Party accepted the Monitor for its rectification, the Opposite Party did not return the same to the Complainant till this time. When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the PW1 it is to see that the evidence before us is unchallengeable since the Opposite Party is ex-parte in this case. When we go through the evidence there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by PW1. Therefore we find that Opposite Party is liable to the Complainant. Therefore point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant. As discussed above due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party the Complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony and loss. So we hold that the Opposite Party is liable to make good the loss sustained to the Complainant. Hence we are of the view that the Opposite Party is liable to return the Monitor or to pay the present market value of the monitor in addition to refund Rs. 1,000/- collected from the Complainant. The Complainant has also entitled to get compensation and cost of the complaint
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to handover the repaired monitor to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order or should pay the present market value of the Monitor. (The complainant has to produce the price list of the same company to show the current price of the monitor)
The Opposite Party is directed to compensate the Complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) for rendering deficient services,
Harassment etc. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay another sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Complainant under the head of litigation expenses. Let the order be complied with by Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the same shall be then payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till its final payment.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18th day of March 2022.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Prabhakaran. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice. dt:13.02.09.
A2. Service Slip. dt:12.11.2018.
A3. Power of Attorney.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
