G. Suryaprakash,
S/o. Late G.Gopal,
A4-6, Plot No. 572-A, Silpa Singapore Township,
Nandyal Road,
Kurnool – 518 003. …Complainant

Versus

M/s. Philips Service Centre &
Televide Service Centre,
Represented by its Dealer cum Proprietor,
Mr. P.C. Prathap Reddy,
# 40-301-7E, Upstairs,
Opposite Variety Theatre , Bellary Road,
Kurnool – 518 004. ..Opposite party

ORDER

1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act
seeking direction on the opposite party to replace with new music
system in good condition with warranty , to pay sum of Rs.15 per day
for 16 months as damages Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental
agony and cost of the case alleging deficiency of service of the
opposite party in not returning the music system attending its repairs
despite of several demands and approaches and laps of much time
from 08-06-2007 and having received Rs.3,800/- for repairing said
set.

2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this
case of the complainant the opposite party has caused its appearance
through its counsel and contested the case filling its written version
denying any of its deficiency and there by any of its liability to the
complainants claim.

3. The written version of the opposite party even though admits the
receipt of a dead set of music system from the complainant for its
repair it submits that the said set was repaired properly getting to it
spare parts worth Rs.15,289/- and was made ready for delivery long
back and the complainant has not collected it in spite of repeated
requests of the opposite party by phone paying the due charges of its
repair and so any of its liability to the claimed damages ,
compensation for mental agony and costs. It further denies any of
payment of Rs.3,800/- alleged by the complainant towards repair
charges.

4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side
has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 and its sworn
affidavit , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary
record in Ex.B1 to B6 and its sworn affidavit.

5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant
has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and
there by the liability of the opposite party for the complainant claim.

6. As the complainant alleges the purchase of one F.W – V39 VCD
Mini Hi-Fi System Video CD Vision 2VCD player (MP3) of Philips
Company worth Rs.18,000/- from M/s. Pai International , Bangalore
and not from the opposite party , the Ex.A1 – the users manual along
with guarantee – remains with any relevancy to this case except to
feel the purchase of said set by the complainant from said source .

7. The Ex.A2 – is a printed receipt dated 08-06-2007 of the
opposite party . It envisages the name of the complainant and his
address and receipt of one dead Philips system of Model. No. FW .V 39
for repair by the opposite party’s service centre .

It further envisages receipt of Rs.3,800/- on 11-06-2007 , even though it does not bear the signature of its issuer . But the Ex.A4 – office copy of the legal notice dated 02-09-2008 caused to the opposite party for the
complainant alleges the said payment of Rs.3,800/- by the complainant to the opposite party towards repairing charges and the said being not responded with any denial by any reply of the opposite party availing it as the earliest possibility for his reply if the said payment is false . Hence there appears any truth in the said denial of the receipt of said amount of Rs.3,800/- alleged by the opposite party in his written version . Especially when the said entry as to receipt of Rs.3,800/- in cash finds its place in the column of Ex.A2 meant for components replaced and repairing details .


Even though the opposite party alleges the payment of Rs.3,800/- towards the cost of the new DVD Player Model .No. 3046 on 18-06-2007 , the said fact being not substantiated by the opposite party by any cogent material and entries in Ex.A2 as to Rs.3,800/ bears the date as 11-06-2007 there
remains any cogency and relevancy in the contention of the opposite
party as to receipt of Rs.3,800/- from the complainant . Thus there
being any cogent material from the opposite party rebutting the
same, the said payment of Rs.3,800/- to the opposite party alleged by
the complainant remains established.

8. The Ex.A4 notice , which was acknowledged by the opposite
party under acknowledgement attached to it , alleges the opposite
party has endorsed on 15-10-2007 at Ex.A3 agreeing to pay damages
if the set was not repaired and delivered back to the complainant
within a week . Even though the said endorsement in Ex.A3 dates to
15-10-2007 and bears the signature of the opposite party which is
similar to his signatures in this case , but the matter scribed there in
is being not so intelligible to lend support to the contentions of the
complainant as to the aspect of damages alleged in complaint
especially when in the Ex.A4 notice there is any claim of complainant
for damages from the opposite party .

9. The opposite party contends that the said set of the
complainant given for repair was attends of its repairs expending of
Rs. 15,289/- for its spares and services and the complainant is only at
the fault in collecting of the said repaired set paying its repair charges
of Rs.15,289/- .

But there appears any bonafides in said contention in
the absence of a return demand from the opposite party to the
complainant for payment of Rs.15,289/- towards spares and services
and repairing charges of said set either in the period prior to filling of
the complainants case or any of the delegant approaches of the
opposite party in responding to the Ex.A4 notice with any of said
contentions know taken in its written version and in the absence of
substantiation of the so called phone intimations given to the
complainant placing the phone bills of the relevant month envisaging
the list of the phone numbers of the complainant mentioned in Ex.A2 ,
to which the opposite party might have phoned to wards his endeavor
of requesting the complainant to collect the repaired set paying the
due amount of its repair.

Thus there being any bonafidies in the said contention of the opposite party as to the charges due from the complainant for spares and services rendered to said set in its repair and in the absence of the details in written version and sworn affidavit of the opposite party as to this spare parts and their cost provided to said set for effecting its repair the Ex.B1 to B4 – stock summary showing the price of item pertaining to set type FWV 28 , FWV 39 / 21 , FWV 39 / 21 M and FWV 28/21 while the complainant’s set given for
repair was said to be of model FWV – 39 , leaves any relevancy for its
appreciation in this case.

10. In the same way , as the instrument delivered to the
opposite party by the complainant for effecting repair is stated in
Ex.A4 , complaint and written version of the opposite party as FW – V
39 VCD Mini HI FI System Video CD version 2 VCD Player MP 3 , the
Ex.B5 a printer broacher envisaging various other models of DVD
Players in Philips make bears any relevancy for its appreciation in this
case.

11. While the matter stood thus , during the pendency of this case,
the opposite party has delivered to the complainant the repaired set
in its satisfactory working condition to the complainant vide Ex.B6 on
29-04-2009 i.e about 6 months after to the institution of the
complaint. Hence the contentions in the written version that the said
set was ready for delivery long back after its needed repairs being
attended and the fault is totally on the complainant in collecting back
the repaired set paying back the due charges of its repair in spite of
several repeated requests by opposite party on phone appears to be a
plea for plea sake without any substance of truth there in .

12. Further , the very delivery of repair set on 29-04-2006 vide
Ex.B6 to the complainant envisages the complainant was deprived of
the said set for more than any reasonable time at the cost of his
mental agony and constrained him to the forum for redressal of his
grievances. Therefore the complainant is remaining entitled to an
amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and
Rs.1,000/- as costs of this case.

13. As the repaired said set was delivered to the complainant to his
satisfaction as to its working condition during pendency of this case
vide Ex.B6, the first relief’s sought in complaint is working infractuous
for passing an order as sought.

14. Consequently, in the result of the above discussion ,the
complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- as
compensation to the complainant for mental agony suffered and
Rs.1,000/- as cost of this case within a month of receipt of this order.
In default the opposite party shall pay the supra stated award with
12% interest from the date of default till realization.