BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 111/2011 Filed on 01.04.2011
Dated : 30.06.2012
Complainant :
T.S. Chandrakumar, Ambalamuttam, Attukal, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. D.R. Rajesh)
Opposite party :
Manager, Onida Customer Relation Centre, Kaithamukku P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Issac Samuel)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 20.06.2012, the Forum on 30.06.2012 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant had entrusted his Onida DVD Player having model No. AC 56120 Serial No. ID 62DHD422 and its remote controller to the opposite party for rectifying its defect on 30.04.2010. Opposite party accepted the same and issued receipt. Opposite party assured the complainant that the defects will be cured and returned it back within one week. But thereafter 10 months elapsed, opposite party did not return the DVD Player to the complainant. Complainant approached the opposite party on several times to get the equipment. But the opposite party did not give it so far. At last on 05.02.2011 when complainant approached the opposite party, then the opposite party told him that he never entrusted the remote controller with them. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 11.02.2011. Opposite party issued a reply to the complainant with false statements. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version denying all the allegations levelled against them. Opposite party stated that the complainant never entrusted the DVD Player or remote controller to them as per the narration of the complainant. Opposite party states that on 05.02.2011 complainant approached the opposite party's service centre and demanded the DVD Player and remote controller and declared that he was not willing to pay the service charge for the reason that the opposite party committed delay in servicing the DVD Player. Opposite party further states that the complainant's demand was that to return the remote controller which was not actually entrusted to the opposite party. Opposite party further alleges that complainant behaved very badly to them in front of their customers.
Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavits. From the side of complainant 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Examined the complainant as PW1 and opposite party cross examined him. But the complainant never turned up to cross examine the opposite party. Hence the affidavit filed by the opposite party stands unchallenged.
Points to be ascertained:
Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite party?
Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted his Onida DVD Player and its remote controller to the opposite party for rectifying its defect on 30.04.2010. But so far the opposite party has neither rectified the defect nor has returned it to the complainant. Complainant has produced the receipt issued by opposite party, at the time of entrusting the DVD player, as Ext. P1. As per this receipt, the date is 30.04.2010 and complaint is noted as 'not work', and model number mentioned as ACV 56120 and Serial No. ID62DH0422401. But nowhere in this document it has been mentioned what the equipment is. Opposite party totally denied the transaction. Hence the burden of proof rests with the complainant to prove the facts. He has produced only Ext. P1 receipt. But nowhere in the receipt it is mentioned it was the Onida DVD Player and its remote controller. Ext. P2 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant. Ext. P3 is the copy of reply notice. Through this notice also the opposite party denied the transaction. But as per Ext. P1 receipt issued by the opposite party dated 30.04.2010, the complainant has entrusted something bearing model No. 56120 serial No. ID62DH0422401 to the opposite party for repairing. At the time of hearing, the opposite party's counsel submitted that the complainant entrusted a DVD Player to the opposite party for repairing and the opposite party has repaired it, but the complainant was not ready to pay the repairing charge to them. The DVD player was not the ONIDA Company's product and complainant never entrusted the remote controller to them. On the basis of that submission, we allow the complaint partly.
In the result, opposite party is directed to return the DVD player which has been entrusted by the complainant with the opposite party to the complainant in working condition. Opposite party shall not receive any repairing charge from the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to compensation and costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June 2012.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 111/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Chandrakumar. T.S
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of receipt dated 30.04.2010.
P2 - Copy of legal notice
P3 - Copy of reply notice.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
