Kerala

Wayanad

CC/11/32

J.P.Paul Alexander,Ettippatta House,Vattakkari Gardance,Pinangode road,Kalpetta. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sajeesh Mathew,Vadakkekkara Veedu,Karattapadi,Vengapally,Thekkumthara Post. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/32
 
1. J.P.Paul Alexander,Ettippatta House,Vattakkari Gardance,Pinangode road,Kalpetta.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sajeesh Mathew,Vadakkekkara Veedu,Karattapadi,Vengapally,Thekkumthara Post.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW Member
 HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:


 

The complaint filed against the Opposite Party for non delivery of the T.V set which was given for repair.


 

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant entrusted a IVA Colour T.V 21inch for repair to the Opposite Party's shop. In several occasions the Complainant approached the Opposite Party to get the T.V repaired. The Opposite Party was not ready to repair and give back the T.V to the Complainant even after the repeated demands. Time and again the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party. Instead of returning the T.V after repair, the Opposite Party opted one or other reason and on 14.01.2011 the Complainant sent a notice to the Opposite Party. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give back the T.V after repair and in working condition. If the Opposite Party failed to give back the T.V the cost of the T.V Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the Complainant along with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/-.


 

3. The Opposite Party filed version in brief it is as follows:- It is admitted that the IVA colour T.V 21 inch is given in the shop of the Opposite Party for repair. The Opposite Party repaired twice and had given the T.V set to the Complainant before the disputed event. The T.V set which brought by the Opposite Party had serious defects the vital part of the set as such ICs transistors control system are inoperative and the spare parts are not available in market it was also informed to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. The Complainant was also informed that if the T.V set if to be repaired the repair cost around Rs.1,800/- to be met by him. The Complainant did not whisper the willingness instead informed Opposite Party that he would be coming back after making a decision. The T.V set which entrusted to the Opposite Party was in effect not taken back by the Complainant and he was not ready to get it repaired. The other allegations of the Complainant that the parts of the T.V set are fitted to some other T.V set are nothing but false. The Complainant in short was not even ready to pay service charge Rs.200/-. The service charge demanded by this Opposite Party is the reason for initiating the complaint and it is to be dismissed with cost.


 

4. Points in consideration are:-

  1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

  2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party and Exts.A1 to A3 documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party are also considered.


 

6. The dispute in issue of the complaint is that the T.V set which was given for repair was not given back to the Complainant. The T.V set branded IVA Colour T.V of 21 inch and no other document in respect of the T.V to know the price is produced. Any how it is admitted by the Complainant that the T.V set has been in use for more than 8 years spare parts are not available in market according to the Opposite Party. It evidenced by the Opposite Party and the Complainant that the T.V set is ready to be repaired by the Opposite Party. The amount demanded is Rs.1,800/- and it is also disposed by the Opposite Party that to repair the make the T.V in working conditions Rs.1,800/- is to be spent and the Complainant is also ready to meet the repair charges as admitted.


 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to give back the T.V set entrusted by the Complainant in working condition on receival of Rs.1,800/- (Rupees One thousand Eight hundred only) towards the repair charges. The Complainant is also entitled for Rs. 500/- ( Rupees Five hundred only) towards cost and compensation. This is to be complied by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st August 2011.

Date of filing:21.02.2011.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X


 

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. I.P. Paul Alexander Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Sajeesh. T.V. Service.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:14.01.2011.

A2. Postal Receipt. dt:14.01.2011.

A3. Acknowledgement.


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.