M.SUBBAIN vs V.DHANIKACHALAM

THE unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His case is that he has given a refrigerator to the opposite party-Dhanikachalam for repair and he did some repair work and received a sum of Rs. 1,750/-. But again the refrigerator was not alright and when the complainant approached the opposite party he demanded a sum of Rs. 975/- for further servicing. Since the defects persisted only because of the improper servicing of the opposite party, the complainant asked the opposite party to return back the amount of Rs. 1,750/- paid to him, but he refused. On these grounds alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,750/- and also a sum of Rs.20,000/- cost of the refrigerator and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering.

THE opposite party in his written version denied that any fridge was given to him for servicing and that he is the Proprietor of ''Cool Land Enterprises as stated in the complaint. He contended that there was no deficiency in service on his part as alleged. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the complainant has not proved that he gave his refrigerator to the opposite party for repair and as such the opposite party cannot be held deficient in service. On this finding the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Now in the appeal, it is argued that the finding of the District Forum that the opposite party has not received the said sum for repair, is not correct considering the evidence adduced by the complainant in the case. In this respect it is pointed out to us that Ex. A-2 is the report given to the Police by the complainant wherein an endorsement has been made by the Commissioner of Police to the effect that the complainant feels that repair has not been done properly and therefore a suit can be filed in the Civil Court to get justice. On the basis of this endorsement it is argued that the opposite party was present before the Commissioner and there it was admitted that the fridge had been given for repairs, and therefore the present version that the fridge was not given for repair, must be untrue. But from the said endorsement by the Commissioner, we cannot come to the conclusion that the fridge was in fact given to the opposite party for repair. It is next pointed out to us that in Ex. A-7 bill, the opposite party has signed. But the opposite party denies that the signature thereon is his. In this position we cannot definitely say that the said signature must be of the opposite party. Apart from the above said documents, there is no other document to establish that the fridge was in fact given to the opposite party for repair. It is also not clearly established that the opposite party was the Proprietor of ''Cool Land Enterprises''. We, therefore, feel that the District Forum has correctly held that the opposite party cannot be held liable. In these circumstances, we give liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy in a Civil Court if he so desires.

IN the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.