IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 27^thday of August, 2021.

                                      Filed on 13-07-2020

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.157/2020

between

Complainant:-                                                              Opposite party:-

Sri.Dixon P.A                                                              Sri.Joy V.P

Panackalpurackal House                                             Veliyil House

Thiruvampady P.O.                                                     Thiruvampady P.O.              

Beach Ward, Near Railway                                         Beach Ward, Alappuzha

Service station, Alappuzha                                         (Party in person)

(Party in person)

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-

Complainant entrusted his TV for repairs with the opposite party.  However it was not returned in time inspite of repeated demands.  After about one month and 6 days complainant visited the opposite party at his house and found that the TV was not repaired.  Again opposite party demanded more time.  As per the request of opposite party complainant went to his house and found that the TV was not properly repaired.  Due to the delay in repairing online classes of the complainant’s children were disrupted.  Opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.3,500/- for repairing charges but it was not paid since the TV was not repaired.

Though the local party members intervened in the dispute it could not be settled inspite of negotiations.  Hence the complaint is filed.  The demands of the complainant’s are to repair the TV for an amount of Rs.3,500/-, return the TV at its previous condition or give an amount of Rs.8,000/-.

2.      Opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-

The complaint is filed with untrue facts.  Complainant is the neighbor of opposite party.  On 12.05.2020 complainant approached the opposite party to change the back light of the TV.  Complainant gave the TV at the house of the opposite party.  On inspection it was revealed that one panel has to be removed.  He demanded money but it was not paid.  He spent an amount of Rs.1,000/- and purchased spare parts.  However the TV could not be repaired since it is 3 years old.  It can be repaired only by spending an amount of Rs.8,500/-.  He has not collected any amount from the complainant.  Complainant is threatening him demanding amount.  He is prepared to repair the TV on payment of Rs.8,500/-.

3.      On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the TV repaired on payment of Rs.3,500/-?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.8,000/- as price of the TV?
4. Reliefs and costs?

4.      Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 from the side of the opposite party.

Point Nos.1 to 3

         The case of PW1, the complainant is that he entrusted the TV for repairs with RW1, the opposite party.  It was not repaired and returned in time inspite of several demands.  Though negotiations were done it was not successful.  Hence complaint is filed claiming the amount of TV or to get the same repaired, on payment of labour charge of Rs.3,500/-.  Per contra the case advanced by RW1, the opposite party is that though he purchased spare parts worth Rs.1,000/- and tried to repair the TV it was not functioning.   Since the panel is not working Rs.8,500/- is required for repairing the TV.

         At the time of hearing PW1 submitted that he is ready to settle the case on receipt of Rs.5,000/- and is ready to relinquish the right over the TV.  Though opposite party agreed for the suggestion he wanted 3 months for payment.  In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the case can be settled in terms of compromise entered between the parties by providing 3 months time for opposite party for payment of the amount.  Hence the complaint is allowed in terms of agreement entered between the parties and the points are found accordingly.

Point No.4

         In the result complaint is allowed in terms of compromise entered between the parties as follows:-

1. Opposite party will pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on or before 30.11.2021 and the complainant will relinquish the right over the TV.

2. In the event of default complainant is allowed to realize Rs.5,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order (27.08.2021). 
3. No cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 27^th  day of August, 2021.

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Sd/-Smt.Lekhamma C K (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Dixon P.A (Witness)

Ext.A1                -        User guide book

Ext.A2                -        Owner’s manual

Ext.A3                -        Complaint filed before Alappuzha Police station

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                             -        V.P. Joy  (Witness)

 // True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-