OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.99/2010
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smt Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3) Sri Jamatul Islam - Member
Sri Dinesh Chandra Kalita - Complainant
S/O- Late Majik Chandra Kalita
R/O- Ambikagiri Nagar
Hatigarh Chariali,Guwahati
Dist-Kamrup (M) ,Assam
-vs-
1) Tech Shop - Opp.parties
84, Rajgarh Main Road
Guwahati-781003
Appearance:- Ld advocate Mr S.Das for the complainant and Ld advocate Mr Rakesh Sharma for the opp. party.
Date of Argument- 21/02/2018
Date of Judgment- 06/03/2018
JUDGMENT
THIS IS A PROCEEDING U/S-12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986
- The complaint filed by Sri Dinesh Chandra Kalita against Tech Shop was admitted on 09/11/2010 .Notice was served on them and they also filed their W/S on 15/11/2011. There after the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and he was cross examined by the Ld counsel of the opp. party. There after one Sri Anjan Bhattacharjee filed evidence for the opp. party side but his affidavit (evidence) was expunged vide our order dtd.29/07/2016 having he had not turned up to face cross examination. After expunging his evidence, the opp. party side did not file evidence at all and being compelled this forum fixed the date of filing written argument and at that stage i.e. on 13/11/2017 one Ld advocate Mr Rakesh Sharma appeared for the opp. party but he also did not take steps in later stage .Ld advocate Mr Sachim Das filed written argument for the complainant on 25/01/2017 and in all other subsequent dates the opp. party side found absent, but on 03/10/2017 the opp. party side vide Petition No-1218/17 prays for adjournment and allowing their petition this forum fixed the day of 05/12/17 for hearing oral argument of both the parties but on that day the opp. party was again found absent without steps and end result the day of 21/02/18 was fixed for oral argument of the parties and on that day Ld advocate Mr Sachim Das forwarded oral argument for the complainant but non appear for the complainant on that day. Today we deliver which is as below
- The complainant case in brief is that on 09/04/2010 he had given his Sony Television to the opp. party’s shop for repairing which was taken by the opp. party vide Job Sheet No-3011 dtd.09/04/2010, but the opp. party did not repair the said television and when he talked to them over phone they misbehaved with him and avoided to respond him and till date they have not repaired the said television and thus it is a case of wilfull negligence and deficiency of service on their part and they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 with interest@ 6% per annum having he was harassed by the opp. party by not repairing the said television.
- The pleading of the opp. party in brief is that the complaint is not maintainable . It is barred by limitation. It is also barred for non joinder of necessary parties. This forum has no jurisdiction to try the instant suit. The television set of the complainant is about more than 10 years old and as such for that model, spare parts are not readily available and the model of the television of the complainant is also not readily available , but they have repaired the television anyhow and informed the complainant over his mobile phone No-9864078379 to collect his repaired television on payment of Rs.1696/- including service charge and spare parts. The Hon’ble court made this partial order directing the complainant to take delivery of the television on payment of Rs.1696/- . In the job sheet the delivery date is not given as opening the television no one can say what spare parts are to be replaced and are readily available or not , but later on same were informed over telephone to the complainant. After repairment , the complainant never turned up to take delivery of his repaired television. They did not caused any harassment to the complainant as well as committed deficiency of service to the complainant . The television is ready for delivery on payment of Rs.1696/-. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- We have perused the evidence of both the parties and found that both sides admit that the complainant on 09/04/2010 deposited his Sony television to the opp. party shop which was received by the opp. party vide Job Sheet No-3011 dtd. 09/04/2010 for repairing and the said television is still in the possession of the opp. party . Another admitted fact of both sides is that in the Job Sheet probable date of delivery after repairement is not quoted.
The plea of the opp. party is that , as the said television is 10 years old its spare parts were not readily available but they anyhow collected the required spare parts from the manufacturer and repaired the same and informed the complainant over his mobile phone No-9864078379 on 24/04/2010 to collect his repaired television on payment of Rs.1696/- including service charge and spare parts cost but he did not collect the television rather approached this forum for taking delivery of the said television; while the plea of complainant is that the opp. party neither repaired the television nor informed him to take delivery of the television. Now we are to see whose version is a true version.
The complainant in his evidence state that he approached the opp. party on several occasion personally and also through phone but the opp. party was unable to deliver him the television rather misbehaved him. In the cross examination he admits that he did not mention specific date and time of his visiting the opp. party shop to take delivery of the television and he also didnot mention about legal notice in his complaint petition. Thus it is found that, the complainant has failed to mention the dates or days of his visits to the opp. party’s shop to take delivery of the television . He has also found not serving any written notice or warning to the opp. party shop to repair and deliver his television. He has also failed to adduce any other evidence to show that he visited the opp. party’s shop to take delivery of his television but opp. party has failed to deliver his television to him. Thus it is not established that after depositing the television to the opp. party by the complainant on 09/04/2010 for repairing he visited the opp. party shop to take delivery of his television in one occasion or in several occasion. Thus reversly it is established that he never visited the shop of opp. party to take delivery of the television depositing the television on 09/04/2010.
This complaint was filed on 09/11/2010 and he deposited the television on 09/04/2010 and between this two dates the complainant has got six months time to make written correspondence with the opp. party about delivery of the television but he did not make any correspondence during long six months time also. Admitted the concerned television is a old model television and the complainant also used it about ten years . This circumstance infer that the complainant wilfully abstrained himself taking back the television from the opp. party as he has no mind to pay the repairing cost of the television, Rs.1696.
Thus we are of opinion that, the opp. party is not illegally possessing the said television . It is found that they have already repaired the television fixing spare parts and they are ready to deliver the same but the complainant wilfully neglect to take delivery for economic reason. Therefore the opp. party is not found commiting deficiency of service towards the complainant or causing harassment to him and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this forum.
Summing up above discussion we hold that the complaint has no merit. Hence the complaint is dismissed on contest.
The complainant may take delivery of the said television , in whatever stage it is now after payment of Rs.1696 , if he will so.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 6th March ,2018.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Smt.A.D.Lahkar) (Sri J.Islam.) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member Member President
