Dila Ram Verma vs JOGINDER SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed by one Dila Ram Verma (Petitioner herein) being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in first appeal No. 297/2006 wherein Shri Joginder Singh, Shri Sanjeev K. & Company and Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3) were Respondents. In his complaint before the District Forum the Petitioner stated that he had purchased an Onida Colour T.V. from Respondent No. 2 on 23.3.1999 for a sum of Rs. 15,000 with a warranty period of one year. In the last week of January, 2002 i.e. on expiry of the warranty period, Respondent No. 1 stating that he was an authorized Technician for Respondent No. 3 advised the Petitioner to renew the warranty period of his television for one more year by paying him Rs. 750 which the Petitioner refused to do. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached Respondent No. 2 to get the problems rectified. Respondent No. 2 assured that Respondent No. l would do the needful and an authorized Technician of Respondent No. 3 checked the television and informed the Petitioner that some parts needed to be replaced for which the Petitioner would have to pay Rs. 1,485. Petitioner paid this amount and although some components were replaced at exorbitant rates and without giving any receipt, the television still did not function properly and thereafter the Petitioner again requested Respondent No. l to get the matter attended to. Respondent No. l in the absence of the Petitioner replaced the original 21" chassis of the television with a 20" chassis and also the original remote control and charged the Petitioner Rs. 4,000 for the same. Since all this was done behind the back of the Petitioner, he complained to the Respondents about the above facts and instead of redressing his grievance, Respondents threatened to file a case against him. Being aggrieved by the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Petitioner filed a complaint with the District Forum requesting that the Respondents be directed to jointly and severally pay back the Petitioner Rs. 4,000 plus Rs. 1,485 i.e. Rs. 5,485 taken for unsatisfactory repairs of the television along with interest @ 24% p.a. or replace the defective television set with a new Onida television set and/or pay him a sum of Rs. 15,000 along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 29.1.2002 along with compensation of Rs. 20,000 towards harassment and mental agony. Respondents while admitting that the Petitioner had bought an Onida colour television set and after the period of warranty made some complaints about its functioning, for which a Technician had been duly sent who satisfactorily repaired the television set denied all the other allegations made against them by the Petitioner. According to the Respondents all the repairs that were undertaken were after the period of warranty and were done with the consent and full knowledge of the Petitioner. In fact, in the job-sheet after replacement of the chassis and new remote control the Petitioner''s wife had signed the job-sheet in token of satisfactory replacement of chassis and functioning of the television set. It was the Petitioner who had refused to pay Rs. 4,000 on account of replacement of the chassis and some other components as well as payment towards the extended warranty of one year because of which the Respondents had filed a report/complaint with the police on 28.3.2002. It was only after the police visited the Petitioner''s office that he had filed the present complaint before the Consumer Forum which is false and baseless.

DISTRICT Forum after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record dismissed the complaint by observing as follows: "There is not an iota of evidence to corroborate the bald averments made in the complaint that the television after repair is not functioning properly. Though, the complainant has placed on record the copies of the bills purported to have been issued by M/s. Janta Electronics and M/s. Paul Electronics to prove that he had to incur higher charges and the repair charges have been charged on the excessive side, yet we are of the view that the complainant cannot derive any benefit from the same as no affidavit in support thereof of the concerned person has been brought on record. It has not been even remotely suggested that the aforesaid persons are the authorized dealers of M/s. Onida. In nutshell, we conclude that there is no cogent reliable or convincing evidence corroborating the averments made in the complaint that the television of the complainant is not functioning properly. After almost three years from the date of purchase of television, it cannot be said that the same is having manufacturing defect or that it is not functioning properly after carrying out the repair and further that OP No. 1 has replaced the chassis and remote control with the duplicate one and further charged excess amount that that of actual charges. Thus viewed from any angle, this Forum cannot come to the rescue of the complainant to hold that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The file after due completion and after supplying the copy of this order to the parties free of costs, be consigned to records."

AGGRIEVED by this order Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision petition.

PETITIONER was present in person. Respondents were represented by learned Counsel Mr. Ajay Baluja. The petitioner while reiterating the facts pertaining to his complaint as made before the Fora below, further brought to our notice a copy of a "receipt" from Adonis Electronics which was filed before the Fora below wherein it has been recorded that Respondents had received Rs. 4,000 for the repairs carried out in the Petitioner''s television. The Fora below erred in not taking into account this fact and wrongly concluding that Petitioner had never paid to Respondents for the replaced chassis and remote control. Petitioner admitted before us that the television set is still in his possession.

COUNSEL for the Respondents denied the allegations made against them and reiterated that all the repairs were carried out at the instance of and with the full knowledge of the Petitioner. In fact, the chassis and the remote control were replaced under a scheme of Respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner accepted this offer because his entire chassis, remote as well as other components had got damaged due to a number of reasons including high voltage. The receipt relied upon by the Petitioner regarding the payment having been received by the Respondents is only a bill that was raised and no proof was filed by Petitioner that it was a receipt of payment. The Fora below being Courts of fact had on the basis of credible evidence produced before them rightly concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and the revision petition therefore deserves to be dismissed.

WE have heard the Petitioner in person and the Counsel for Respondents. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had purchased the Onida colour television from Respondent No. 2 for Rs. 15,000 and that it was working satisfactorily during the period of warranty and defects were noticed for the first time almost two years after the purchase of the television by the Petitioner. We find from the records that the Respondents promptly attended to the Petitioner''s complaints and as per the job-sheet which was signed by the Petitioner''s wife the repairs were satisfactorily done. We agree with the Fora below that under these circumstances the Petitioner has not been able to produce any credible evidence to substantiate his claim and the bill produced by him as documentary evidence of payment does not help him in the absence of any proof regarding its authenticity. We further note that the Petitioner still has television set in his possession. Taking into account all the above facts, we see no merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.