BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 166/2003 Filed on 24.04.2003<br /> Dated : 30.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Vinod Kumar, Vasantha Bhavan, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv. B. Mathew)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> The Proprietor, Ashvini Electronics, T.C 9/2283, Meenakshi Vilas, K.R. Elankath Road, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. S. Reghukumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30.11.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.06.2008, the Forum on 30.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant entrusted a Sony car stereo set of model No. KEHP 5015, Serial No. 1256254770 for repairing at opposite party's service centre on 08.11.2002. The cost of the set is about Rs. 7000/-. Opposite party redelivered the above said set on 19.02.2003. Redelivery is effected after a long delay. Towards the servicing charge and other expenses opposite party demanded Rs. 2200/- and the same paid on the same day through bill No. 1161. But unfortunately the above said set has got previous complaint within one week from the date of redelivery. Petitioner again approached counter petitioner for the repair. Hence petitioner given back the set on 25.02.2003 for further repairing at this service centre. But the counter petitioner reluctant to do proper servicing free of cost for the second time. Opposite party is bound to do the servicing free of cost for the second time because he had received a huge amount of Rs. 2200/- for the first repairing alone. From this it is clearly evident that even though he had received an amount of Rs. 2200/- proper servicing was not done by the counter petitioner. The above said set was a newly purchased one, which was rashly handled by the opposite party and thus genuinity of the equipment itself lost forever. As the originality of the set lost for ever and the working capacity of the set is still doubtful. This incident caused huge financial loss to this petitioner. That loss should be compensated by the counter petitioner. Under these circumstances, opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant either with Rs. 7500/- or by replacing the said set with a new one. <br /> The opposite party filed their version. The opposite party admitted that the complainant entrusted a car stereo set with them on 08.11.2002 for repairing. The opposite party submitted that opposite party is the authorised service centre in Kerala for M/s Pioneer Electronics, Japan coming under M/s Emission Electronics, Bombay. The set was repaired properly by replacing IC Nos. PE 5198A and TA 8277 imported from Japan. As per the opposite party the complainant was satisfied with the repair of the set and thereafter he paid the repair charges. At the time of delivery of the set on 19.12.2003 complainant was advised to check the wiring of the car for short circuit. The opposite party admitted that the complainant has brought the set again on 25.02.2003. On examination of the set it was found that IC No. PE 5198A was burst and burned along with a transistor No. 2 SD 2037 due to wiring short circuit. The opposite party stated that the damage to the stereo set has occurred only due to the wiring short circuit in the car of the complainant. They denied the allegation that the originality of the set was lost due to the rough handling of the service of the opposite party. The opposite party submitted that they had done the service properly and after that the stereo set was in perfect working condition. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. <br /> In this case the complainant and opposite parties have filed proof affidavit. From the complainant's side marked two documents as Ext. P1 and P2. Opposite party produced 4 documents marked as Exts. D1 to D4. <br /> Ext. P1 is the service report cum bill dated 19.02.2003. Ext. P2 is the receipt issued by the opposite party when the complainant produced the stereo set at second time for repairing that is on 25.02.2003. Still the stereo set is with the opposite party. The opposite party's service technician has filed the proof affidavit for evidence. Ext. D1 is the reply notice dated 20.03.2003, Ext. D2 is the receipt dated 08.11.2002 issued by the opposite party. Ext. D3 is the service report dated 19.02.2003. Ext. D4 is the receipt dated 25.02.2003. <br /> The opposite party admitted the transaction between them and the complainant. According to the complainant, the damage to the stereo set has occurred due to the rough handling and negligence of the opposite party. The opposite party charged Rs. 2200/- as repairing charge on 19.02.2003. But the stereo set became defective within a short period of six days. Ext. P2 goes to support the said complaint. From Ext. P2 it is evident that the stereo set was repaired on 19.02.2003 by paying an amount of Rs. 2200/- became defective again on 25.02.2003. When such items are repaired by paying such huge amount a defect free performance is expected. But contrary to that the stereo system has become defective immediately after service, which can only be considered as a defective service. Moreover the delay of 4 months in servicing the stereo set by the opposite party shows their lethargic attitude. The opposite party stated that the complaint was occurred due to the short circuit problem in the wiring of the car. But there is no evidence to prove that statement. The complainant contended that statement of the opposite party. They argued that if it is so, that short circuit should have affected the whole car. As per Sec. 13(1)c of the Consumer Protection Act, expert opinion is necessary to decide the case, but in this case since the stereo set is with the custody of the opposite party, the said procedure is not capable of being followed. As per the ruling cited in 1999(4) SCC 315 it is the settled position that no fault can be found with the District Fora, State Commission or the National Commission, in the matter of not following the procedure under Sec. 13(1)c when the complainant was not in possession of the same. <br /> From the foregoing discussions, the complaint is partly allowed and directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 2200/-, the repairing charge paid by the complainant on 19.02.2003 along with 9% interest from 19.02.2003 till the realisation of the amount and also shall pay Rs. 1000/- towards cost of the complaint. And also directed the opposite party to hand over the stereo set to the complainant. Time for compliance is two months. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 166/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of service report receipt No. 1161 dated 19.02.2003 issued by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P2 - Photocopy of receipt No. 412 dated 25.02.2003 issued by the opposite party. <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS:<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> D1 - Copy of reply notice dated 20.03.2003.<br /> D2 - Original (duplicate copy) receipt No. 333 dated 08.11.2002 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. <br /> D3 - Original (duplicate copy) receipt No. 1161 dated 19.02.2003 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. <br /> D4 - Original (duplicate copy) receipt No. 412 dated 25.02.2003 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />