Parmar Electric Store
This is a discussion on Parmar Electric Store within the Electrical Appliances forums, part of the House Hold Goods category; Baljesh Rai son of late Sh. Ishwar Dass, resident of village and PO Chachian (Nagri) Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP) ...
- 09-08-2009, 11:41 AM #1Administrator
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Parmar Electric Store
Baljesh Rai son of late Sh. Ishwar Dass, resident of village and PO Chachian (Nagri) Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP)
Parmar Electric Store, authorised Philips Service Centre, Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra HP through its Proprietor.
In nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that he had approached the opposite party to purchase a T.V. tuner (Philips make) of his television. Accordingly, on 21.7.05, the opposite party visited his house and replaced the tuner with new one and had charged Rs.1400/- for the said tuner. It is asserted that immediately after the installation of the tuner, it had developed defect and the matter was reported to the opposite parties, but the needful was not done. The opposite party had attended his complaint on 26.7.05. At that time, the opposite party had demanded Rs.700/- more from him for replacement of tuner with another. The grievance of the complainant is that the tuner replaced by the opposite party had also gone out of order and that it had failed to provide a defectless tuner to him. In this manner, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.
2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by the opposite party by asserting that there is no defect in the tuner, which was replaced after the entire satisfaction of the complainant. The defect in the T.V., if any, is due to mishandling by use of booster. The mechanic, after due satisfaction of the complainant when the T.V. was working perfectly, had left the house of the complainant.
3. Both the parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and annexures in support of their contentions. This Forum on 5.12.2007 framed the following points for determination:-
1. Whether O.P committed deficiency in service, as alleged? OPC
2. Whether the complaint is not maintainable, as alleged? OPOP
4. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point no.1: Partly in affirmative
Point no.2: No
Relief: The complaint is partly allowed as per operative part of the order.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POITNS No.1 and 2
5. Both these points are inter connected and inter linked, hence are taken up together for determination, in order to avoid repetition in discussion. The complainant has filed his affidavit, Ex.CW1, in which he has re-counted the averments, as made in the complaint.
6. From the contents of the complaint, which is supported by the affidavit of complainant, Ex.CW1 and annexures, it stands proved that the tuner replaced by the opposite party was a defective tuner and that the same has not been replaced by the opposite party despite several requests made by the complainant. We are of the view that the opposite party was under legal obligation to replace the same with new one despite the fact that it had received the consideration amount from the complainant. The defence of the opposite party that there was no defect in the tuner and that the same had been installed in the television of the complainant by the mechanic to his entire satisfaction, is rejected having no substance. The opposite party has not placed on record the affidavit of the mechanic who had been sent to the premises of the complainant to replace the tuner, in order to prove his such defence. In the absence of cogent evidence, it cannot be said that there was no defect in the tuner replaced by the opposite party. We are of the view that the opposite party was under legal obligation to replace the same, when the complainant requested it. Thus, the action of the opposite party in not replacing the tuner of the complainant is nothing but great deficiency in service.
7. Now, how this deficiency can be cured? We are of the view that the ends of justice will be met, in case the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1850/-. Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in affirmative and point No.2 is decided in negative.
8. No other point argued or urged.
9. In view of our findings on points no.1 and 2 above, the complaint is partly allowed and we order the opposite party to refund Rs.1850/- to the complainant within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, till its realization. The complaint is allowed alongwith litigation costs of Rs.1000/-.Regards,
** PMs asking me for support will be deleted unless I've asked you to PM me with additional details **
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 1Last Post: 04-10-2013, 09:00 AM
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-03-2009, 09:24 AM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 08:41 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 03:35 PM
- By Unregistered in forum ElectricityReplies: 0Last Post: 04-04-2009, 02:48 PM