The present complaint pertains to the impugned matter of repairs and alleged delay in delivery of the 43” LED (Plasma Mark) owned by the complainant at the hands of the opposite party T.V. Mechanic Surinder Kumar at his T.V. Repair Shop (hereinafter called ‘the OP’). 

2.       The complainant had owned the LED purchased by him in the year 2014 from the local T.V. Vendor: M/s Ajay TV Centre by paying Rs 32,999/- (Ex.C1) and delivered the same (in non-working condition) to the OP for repairs, in April’ 2019. Repair charges and deliver-back period etc were duly settled between them. However, a serious dispute prompted between the two relating to payment of repair-charges and delay incurred. A verbal spat comprising of hot-worded names exchanged and the matter was reported (Ex.C2) to the local police station and an amicable settlement was reached. The repaired LED was delivered back to the complainant against payment of freshly settled amount (at the police station). Back home, the complainant found the LED unrepaired/infested with same old/reported defects.

3.       The complainant alleging humiliation, physical and mental harassment coupled with financial loss etc has preferred the present complaint claiming therein a refund of Rs 9,000/- paid by him (to the OP) for conducting necessary repairs besides Rs 50,000/- as compensation and Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation.                

4.       The OP, in compliance to the Commission’s Summons, appeared through its counsel and filed his written-version, refuting, denying and rebutting therein, all the allegations as contained in the complaint. Firstly, there’s no cause of action ever erupted in the complainant’s favor and further he has not come to the court with clean hands. The complaint is totally comprised of false stories and baseless aspersions simply to attract undue riches and to drag and harass him (the OP) through a fruitless and continuing litigation (Affidavit Ex.OP1). Further, the OP has narrated details of his side of the dispute. Lastly, the OP has affirmed that dispute matter was resolved through compromise and a settlement deed was also drawn in the Police Station (at the behest of the complainant) that was duly signed by both sides, witnessed by those present and attested by the police A.S.I. the I.O., under his stamp. Finally, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint with costs and has also confirmed having done his part in terms of the said settlement and the complainant has received his LED in fine working condition after having watched its performance for two hours at the OP Shop.              

5.       We have carefully examined the documents/ evidence produced on record in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the present litigants in the light of arguments by the learned counsels. We find the complainant owns an old 43” LED got vide purchase cum exchange of his mobile device. He handed it for repairs to the OP. There arose dispute that was settled through compromise at the police station so the lies in executing furtherance to the existing resolve and not in filing fresh civil suits/ consumer complaints.   

6.       Here we find that a compromise through a settlement, in writing and duly accepted witnessed, was reached at the police station in response to the receipted complaint of the dispute. As the police I.O. (ASI) had allowed compromise/ settlement (civil remedy) it is implied that dispute was not entitled to go in for filing an F.I.R. and instead ‘civil-remedy’ was opted and preferred by those concerned/present. Although, the said type of settlement at the police station does not have the statutory sanctity in law but it deserves appreciation being a good resolve in the light of Govt. Policy, Putting to Practice, Popularity and Necessity of Alternative Resolve throughout the Globe especially in India. As such, a firm endeavor be assured to continue with such a ‘resolve’ till a logical end instead of abandoning/opting out in favor of traditional alternatives.

7.       Finally, in the light of the all above, and seeing no merit in the present complaint we order its ‘dismissal’ however with liberty of pursuance to the complainant to freshen-up/ liven-up the existing settlement/ compromise, if he so desires and has time and inclination for the same. There shall be No Order as to the costs of the present litigation.

8.       The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                  President.    

ANNOUNCED:                                      (R.S.Sukhija)

MAY 05, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.