IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 85/2013 (Filed on 27.06.2013)
Between:
Thankappan Nair,
Varuvayil Veedu,
Aruvappulam. P.O.,
Konni – 689 691. ….. Complainant
And:
1. Vattamon Electricals,
Konni. P.O., Konni.
2. Jupiter Electronics Service Centre,
Jupiter Tower,
Palarivattom,
Kochi – 682 025.
(By Adv. Philip. T. Varghese) ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that his Britelite torch entrusted to the 2nd opposite party on 21.01.2013 for repairs. Later, it is learned that the 1st opposite party send the said torch to the 2nd opposite party through an agent at Pathanamthitta. Thereafter the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party several time for getting the torch repaired. At the same time as per the directions the complainant had paid Rs.950/- on 16.02.2013, Rs. 69/- on 02.03.2013 and Rs. 41/- on 19.04.2013 to the 1st opposite party. However, the complainant has not received the torch so far. Because of the above said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was put to irreparable injury, loss and other sufferings and it is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to return the torch along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. In this case, both opposite parties entered appeared and filed separate versions.
4. The main contention of the 1st opposite party is that he had received the said torch from the complainant on 21.01.2013. Thereafter the 1st opposite party send the torch to the 2nd opposite party by paying Rs. 100/- as courier charges. After inspecting the torch, 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant that he has to pay Rs. 1,060/- for its repairs. Accordingly, the complainant paid the said amount to the 1st opposite party who had given the said amount to the 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party’s responsibility is only for collecting the torch and the repairing charges. The repaired products will be sent to the Pathanamthitta Hub of the 2nd opposite party. Usually the probable delay in repairs will be intimated to the customers when they entrust the products. The delay will be caused due to the non-availability of the spare parts. The complainant was also intimated that his torch was repaired and entrusted with the Pathanamthitta Hub for delivering it to the complainant. But the complainant is not prepared to take the delivery of the torch by saying that he had already filed a consumer complaint. With the above contentions, 1st opposite party prays for dismissing this complaint against him as he had committed no deficiency in service.
5. The main contention of the 2nd opposite party is as follows: They admitted the receipt of the torch from the complainant being the authorized service centre of the manufacturer of the said torch. The repairs will be carried out on getting the required spare parts from the manufacturer. Accordingly, they placed order for the required spare parts before the manufacturer. But the said parts are received after a lapse of sometime due to the non-availability of the said spare parts. Immediately on getting the spare parts the torch was repaired and returned for delivering on 25.06.2013. The delay in returning the torch was not due to any willful default or negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party and its so happened due to the non-availability of the required parts. With the above contentions, 2nd opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that his Britelite torch entrusted to the opposite parties on 21.01.2013 for repairs was not returned to the complainant so far in spite of collecting Rs.1,060/- as repairing charges. The non return of the said torch caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, which is a deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 1document, which is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the courier consignment note dated 21.01.2013 issued by Jupiter Couriers for the collection of the torch in question.
10. On the other hand, the contentions of the opposite parties is that they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and they have repaired the torch and it was sent for delivery to the complainant. However, they admitted the delay in the repairs by saying that it so happened due to the non-availability of the parts required for the repairs. Though the opposite parties raised the above said contentions, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. However the 2nd opposite party cross-examined the complainant. But the 1st opposite party has not turned up for cross-examination or for adducing any evidence.
11. On the basis of the available evidence of this case, it is seen that the parties have no dispute regarding the entrustment of the complainant’s torch with the opposite parties for its repairs and the payment of the repairing charges. The complainant’s allegation is that torch entrusted with the opposite parties is not returned so far inspite of the collection of the repairing charges. Whereas the contention of the opposite parties is that they have already repaired the torch and returned it to the Pathanamthitta Hub for delivery to the complainant on 25.06.2013. But the complainant had not taken the delivery by saying that he had already filed a complaint before this Forum in this regard. Opposite parties also admitted the delay in repairs and their argument for justifying the delay is that the required spare parts are not available. But they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contention. According to the 2nd opposite party, the required spare parts are to be supplied by the manufacturer and they have placed orders before the manufacturer and they have informed the 2nd opposite party about the non-availability of the spare parts. If this contention is true what prevented the 2nd opposite party to produce the copies of the communications between the 2nd opposite party and the manufacturer as mentioned herein above. So in the absence of any cogent evidence in this respect we are not inclined to accept the contention of the 1st opposite party. So we find that the delay in returning the torch cannot be justified and it is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the 2nd opposite party and hence they are liable to the complainant for the same. However, the 1st opposite party being only a collection agent who had performed his duties properly we find no deficiency of service from his part. Therefore this complaint is allowable against the 2nd opposite party.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the 2nd opposite party is directed to return the torch along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and cost of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize a total amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five hundred only) with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of September, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Thankappan Nair
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Courier Consignment Note dated 21.01.2013 issued by Jupiter
Couriers in the name of the complainant
Witness exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Thankappan Nair, Varuvayil Veedu, Aruvappulam. P.O.,
Konni – 689 691.
(2) Vattamon Electricals, Konni. P.O., Konni.
(3) Jupiter Electronics Service Centre, Jupiter Tower,
Palarivattom, Kochi – 682 025.
(4) The Stock File.
