O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner, filed on 6..3..2010 is as follows: Petitioner purchased an electronic appliance “GEEPAS” company “Home Theater” worth Rs. 5,900 from the opposite party’s shop at Pala . Opposite party had given one year warranty to the equipment. The said Home Theater turned defective and became non-functioning from the month of October 2009. So, on 2..1..2009 petitioner entrusted home theater to the opposite party for repair. Opposite party issued service sheet receipt No. 2916 Dtd: 2..11..2009 to the petitioner. Opposite party inform the petitioner that the defect will rectified at the earliest by the company itself because the defect occurred during the warranty period. According to the petitioner he approached the opposite party several times and requested for return of the same after the repairing. On 1..1..2010 petitioner issued a registered lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding to return -2- the home theater, after repairing it, to its original condition. Opposite party refused to accept the same and had not redress the grievance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to return the home theater in working condition. He claims Rs. 2,000/- as compensation if not possible to return in the alternative he claims Rs.7900/- with interest at the rate of 6%. Notice was issued to the opposite party from the Fora. Opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version. So opposite party is set ex-parte. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced the copy of the purchase bill dtd: 24..12..2008 said document is marked as Ext. A1. Petitioner produce the copy of warranty card. Said document is marked as Ext. A2. As per Ext. A2 the warranty is for a period of one year. The service sheet issued by the opposite party produced is marked as Ext. A3. From Ext. A3 it can be seen that the defective good was entrusted to the opposite party on : 2..11..2009 ie. within warranty period. In our view act of the opposite party in not proceeding, as per the warranty, is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. -3- Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed. Opposite party is ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 5,900/- given by the petitioners as value of good. without saying what had happened caused much loss and sufferings to the petitioner. So, we allow Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amounts of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of order. If the order is not complied as directed the petitioner is entitled for 10% interest for the award amount. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of the receipt Dtd: 24..12..2008 Ext. A2: Copy of the warranty Ext. A3: Service sheet Ext. A4: Lawyers notice Ext. A5: Postal receipt Ext. A6: Unclalimed notice. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
