This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to repair the ‘original board’ of his television and refix the same and also to return the remote control unit together with a sum of `30,000 towards compensation along with cost of this proceedings.

The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows :  Opposite party sent a technician Mr.Jothish to repair complainant’s 29 inch Panasonic Colour Television on 18.10.08. On examination he found fault with ‘circuit board’ and removed it.  It was taken to service station with remote control unit after issuing a Home Service Job card dated 18.10.2008.  But even after one month it was not repaired.  After repeated demand a technician came to his house on 02.06.2009 with Board when he was not in the house.  His wife allowed him to carry out the fittings and after fitting the same in the Television he issued a bill dated 02.06.2009 for `3900 and obtained the amount.  When complainant returned home it was found the picture size in his 29 inch Television is only 21 inch.  In the very next morning the same was informed to the Manager and he promised that the original 29 inch board will be repaired soon.  But it was again delayed. Complainant contacted several time and also went to service centre several days but in vain.  On 20.03.2010 lawyer notice was issued.  Then the Manager contacted him and promised to repair and refix the board within a week.  But he did not repair yet.  Hence this complaint.

          Opposite party entered appearance and filed version, the brief content of which is as follows: It is not correct to say that the technician has taken the remote control along with the circuit board. It is true that after fitting the Board, his technician obtained `3900 issuing bill dated 02.06.09.   Opposite party informed the complainant that the spare parts of the circuit board was not available and so could not carried out the repair of the Board.  Then complainant requested the opposite party to fit a circuit board of 21 inches television and opposite party has fitted the same and also informed that the original would be repaired after getting the spare part. But complainant issued lawyer notice.  After receiving the lawyer notice opposite party contacted the complainant and as per his demand the opposite party gave back the circuit board to complainant.  So opposite party is not in possession of the circuit board.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.           Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.           Whether the complainant is entitled to receive?

3.           Relief and cost?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant/PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A4, C1 and Ext.B1.

Issues No.1 to 3:

          Admittedly the technician of the opposite party inspected the house of complainant and checked his Television and the circuit board was removed for repair and taken to service centre after issuing Home Service Job Card dated 18.10.2008.  The case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not repair the Board in time and after several days request, one technician of opposite party came to his house when he was not there and fitted a 21 inch Board instead of original 29 inch Board. On the contrary opposite party contended that he could not repair the original circuit board due to non-availability of spare part and the same was informed to complainant and as per his request the opposite party fit a circuit board of 21 inch television in the television of the complainant.

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit in tune with his pleadings.  The allegation of the complainant is that the technician of the opposite party Mr.Jothish checked his television and removed the circuit board to take it service centre for repair along with the remote control unit.  Opposite party admitted that the board was taken to service centre but denied that he had taken the remote control along with the circuit board and contended that there is no necessity for taking the remote control for the repair of ‘circuit board’.  Ext.A1 home service job card and the admission of opposite party proves that the circuit board was taken by the technician.  The evidence goes to show that the circuit board was taken on 18.10.2008 and technician came and fitted 21 inch instead of 29 inch circuit board on 02.06.09.  So that there is no doubt the fitting was done with much delay and it can be assumed that there should have been enquiries and request again and again.  It is also an admitted fact that opposite party has obtained 3,900 by issuing Ext.A2 bill dated 02.06.09.

          The pleading of the complainant goes to show that complainant has no case with respect to remote control unit on 02.06.09.  He had complaint only regarding replacement of circuit board of 21 inch instead of 29 inch.  Complainant raised the question up on the only issue of this point.  Opposite party specifically contended that the remote control unit had not been taken by them.  It is also contended that there is no need to take the unit of remote control since it is not required it for the repair.  In the chief affidavit he has not stated nothing other than what he has pleaded with respect to the remote control unit.  When the issue of remote control unit had been denied specifically, complainant should have adduced convincing evidence to that effect without which it cannot be presumed that the same was taken by the technician.  Except the repeatation of pleading no evidence has been given to prove that the remote control was taken away by the opposite party even if the same was categorically denied.  Even in argument the learned counsel stated that in response to the offer of settlement on the side of complainant, complainant put forward two conditions one is to repair the television and the second one is to give the cost of the complaint, which was accepted by the opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that there was no whisper about remote control unit even in oral agreement of settlement.  So it is quite evident that the point of remote control unit does not deserve for consideration.

          The main demand on the side of the complainant is to repair the Television.  The available evidence goes to show that circuit board was first taken by the opposite party on 18.10.2008.  It was 29 inch circuit board.  Opposite party replaced 21 inch circuit board after a lapse of 8 months on 02.06.2009.  Opposite party contended that complainant had been informed that he could not repair the 29 inch circuit board since non-availability of spare parts and it was on the request of complainant that 21 inch circuit board was fixed.  Whether it was replaced on the request of the complainant or not is a question of evidence but complainant did not admit it and he has the definite case that even after repeated demand opposite party fitted a board which is not suitable to his television. Admittedly lawyer notice was sent on 20.03.2010.  Complainant alleged that after the receipt of the lawyer notice opposite party contacted him and promised to repair and refix the Board within a week. Whereas, opposite party contended that after receiving the lawyer notice the opposite party contacted the complainant and as per his demand the opposite party gave back the circuit board to complainant.  So opposite party is not in possession of the circuit board of complainant.

          Anyhow, it is clear that the circuit board of complainant has been admittedly within the possession of opposite party right from 18.10.2008 to 20.03.2010.  As per opposite party’s version complainant’s case was over when the Board was returned back after receiving the lawyer notice.  Moreover, he has adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence that pending trial of this complaint on the basis of settlement, his technician went to the house of complainant and repaired the set ready good condition to the satisfaction of the complainant.

          This is a case in which opposite party has taken plea from the beginning that he could not repair the set due to the non-availability of spare part.  The entire delay atleast upto the date of receipt of lawyer notice, caused due to non-availability of spare part. As per the evidence of opposite party it is seen that the TV set was repaired not because the fact of availability of spare part but repaired since they were arrived at a settlement. With regard to the availability of spare parts in the market nothing brought before the Forum so as to assess the delay caused for non-repair of the T.V. on the ground of non-availability of spare parts.  It is pertinent to consider that the entire case of the opposite party has been built up on the basic reason of non-availability of spare parts.  But according to opposite party when the problem of repair was claimed to be solved by repair the state of non-availability has no role at all or no mention about the solution of crisis of non-availability of spare parts.  It can be assumed in the ordinary course that either the repair of set or the non-availability of spare parts, is false.  Both cannot be true in this case.

          Ext.B1 Indore job sheet dated 29.10.10 is the weapon that the opposite party can make use of convincing that the TV set has been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  If it is taken as true it is not true to say that the TV set remained unrepaired for a long time due to non-availability of spare parts.  Opposite party has the liability to establish when does the problem of non-availability of spare parts could be solved.  If he is not able to place convincing evidence on the point of non-availability, opposite party cannot escape from the liability of causing delay in carrying out the repair.  Opposite party has to explain that he has done his best effort to repair the TV set immediately after the availability of spare parts.  If he fails to do so there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  It is true that repair of the TV has not been possible without getting spare parts.  So if any delay caused due to non-availability of spare parts that will never amounts deficiency of service until there is any unfair promise.  If there is no evidence to show that there is availability of spare part it is not possible to believe that the repair of the TV set has been actually carried out.  What is informed by opposite party to complainant as per version is that they would repair the circuit board after getting the spare part of circuit board.  Whether this promise of the opposite party has been satisfied or not?  If that was satisfied and the set repaired accordingly, there should have been signature of the complainant in Ext.A1 issued by opposite party at the time when the Circuit Board was taken on their possession for repair, to the effect that the concerned unit has been repaired as per the satisfaction of the complainant.  Ext.A1 lack the signature of the customer.  If that be so, it cannot be concluded that the set has been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant consumer.  It has to be taken into account that there is no dispute with regard to the content of Ext.A1 whereas, the content of Ext.B1 has been disputed by the complainant.  The challenge of Ext.B1 by the complainant can not be discarded totally since the supporting evidence to prove that the set was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant consists of contradictory elements.

          Ext.B1 job sheet is dated on 29.10.2010.  Ext.C1 is the report submitted by Expert Commissioner.  The inspection was done on 09.07.2011.  Ext.C1(a) acknowledgment proves that the inspection was done giving notice to opposite party much later to Ext.B1.  It can be seen that the commissioner has reported that the set having model No.29V30R and having Sl.No.2340143 manufactured by M/s. Panasonic is not working.  He has also reported certain specific complaints of the set.  Hence the report of the commissioner together with other available evidence prove that the alleged TV set is having defects and is not in working condition.  So the claim of opposite party that the set has been repaired is not digestible.

          On considering the facts, circumstances and available evidence it can be seen that there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the remote of the set has been taken by the opposite party. So also it has come in evidence that the original circuit board has been fitted to the TV.  So the amount of the bill Ext.A2 `3900 together with the sufferings caused due to non performance of the promise of opposite party are the actual loss that has to be taken into account while considering the damage.  Hence we are of opinion that opposite party has to repair the 29 inch original circuit board of complainant and refix the same.  In case if it is found not possible to repair and refix, refund the bill amount of `3900 together with a sum of `5000 as compensation.  Complainant also entitled for cost of this litigation an amount of `2000.  Thus the issues No.1 to 3 are found infavour of complainant and orders passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to repair and refix 29 inch circuit board of complainant’s Panasonic Television along with a sum of `2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of this litigation or else to refund the amount of Ext.A2 `3,900(Rupees Three thousand nine hundred only) and to pay an amount of `5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation with the above said cost of litigation `2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) also within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 10% from the date of order till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days in accordance with provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2012.

Sd/-                     Sd/-                 Sd/-

President             Member            Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Home service job card dated 18.10.2008.

A2. Cash receipt dated 02.06.2009.

A3. Copy of the lawyer notice.

A4. Acknowledgment card dated 24.03.2010.

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.  Indoor job sheet.

Exhibits for the Court

Commission report.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant No.4

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  Sarvesh A.

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT