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 /> <br /> O.P.No. 474/2001 Filed on 17.11.2001<br /> Dated : 30.10.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> Charli John, T.C 12/44, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. P.A. Dev)<br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> Vinod, Proprietor, WECARE, T.C 11/244, A 122, Karthika, Kanaka Nagar, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. Koliakode K. Rajeev)<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 19.09.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.09.2008, the Forum on 30.10.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> The facts of the case are as follows: On 14.07.2001 the complainant entrusted his Hitache Make Video Deck (Model-V7-330 E.D.S Sl.No. 50223940) with the opposite party for repair work as the same was not in working condition. The opposite party inspected the condition of the stereo deck in the presence of the complainant and said that the condition is satisfactory. Then the opposite party had taken the deck for repair and issued a work order No. WO 714005 on the same day itself. The complainant thereafter several times contacted the opposite party through telephone about the stereo deck. But all the time the opposite party replied that the repair work is not over and that the same was not ready for delivery. On 04.10.2001 the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the stereo deck. The opposite party informed the complainant that the motor of the deck is not seen and some other parts of the deck is also seen missing. The opposite party asked the complainant to take back the deck with the same condition as not working. As per the complainant there was no possibility of missing the motor and other parts as the deck was in working condition upto 10.07.2001. So it is clear that the alleged missing happened after taking the deck by the opposite party for repair. The complainant states that the stereo deck is highly essential for his work. Apart from monitory loss, the complainant had to suffer mental agony and inconvenience. All this happened due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence he filed the complaint before this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. <br /> The opposite party, the proprietor “WECARE”, filed version and denied the allegations. The opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that the motor of the deck was missing by the opposite party. The opposite party alleges that the motor was missing from the complainant's side himself. The opposite party did not check the internal condition at the time of taking for repair, they only check the outside condition. As per the opposite party, the complaint is false and baseless one, hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> The complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavit. The complainant has filed the copy of the work order along with terms and conditions. <br /> Points to be ascertained:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?<br /> In this case the opposite party admitted that the complainant entrusted the video deck to him on 14.07.2001, and they inspected the deck and issued work order No. 714005. The copy of work order produced by the complainant is marked as Ext. P1. In the overleaf of the work order terms and conditions are seen printed. As per the 8th clause of the terms and conditions in the work order, it is stated that if the opposite party finds the equipment to have been tampered, misused components removed, the same will be intimated to the consumer within a reasonable time. The complainant entrusted the video deck on 14.07.2001. The opposite party never intimated the complainant that the motor in the deck is seen missing. Only on 14.10.2001 when the complainant went to the opposite party's shop, the opposite party informed the matter. In Ext. P1 document it is seen that the opposite party has written that the condition of the equipment(external) as satisfactory. There is 3 months delay from the side of opposite party to inform the matter that the motor in the deck was missing. This clearly shows the lethargic attitude of the opposite party and evidences that there is negligence on his part and it also shows that the opposite party has miserably failed in discharging the contractual obligation. From the recorded evidence this Forum finds that the alleged missing of the motor in the video deck happened while it was in the custody of the opposite party. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. <br /> The stereo deck is with the opposite party. This is a case with regard to an equipment entrusted to the opposite party in the year 2001, and the equipment is still with the opposite party. The complainant has not produced any record to show the price of the stereo deck. Hence taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, we hereby direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month, otherwise 9% annual interest also shall be paid to the above said amounts from the date of order till the date of realization. <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 /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 474/2001<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of work order No. WO714005 dated 14.07.2001.<br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> NIL <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />