P. THANGAMANI c/o DIVYA ELECTRONICS vs V.V.PANDIAN

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17.7.1996 in O.P. No. 634/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South).

THE opposite party is the appellant while the respondent is the complainant. The succinct facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant, it is said, entrusted with the opposite party, the Dianora Colour T.V. set on 4.4.1995 for effecting repairs. After effecting repairs, the opposite party delivered to the complainant the Dianora T.V. set on 11.5.1995 after collecting a sum of Rs. 2,400/- towards the repair charges. Even after effecting the repairs by the opposite party, the complainant would say, that the T.V. set was not functioning properly. This aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party. Though the opposite party promised to rectify the defect by sending a mechanic to the house of the complainant, yet, he did not take any action at all to keep up his promise. Consequently, the complainant issued a Lawyer''s notice dated 30.5.1995 to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to refund the repair charges of Rs. 2,400/- besides paying compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the defective service rendered by him.

THE opposite party, however, sent a reply notice denying the allegations of the complainant. In such backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite party in pith and substance would contend that there was no deficiency in service on his part. The Dianora T.V. set was a very old set. The Company which produced the T.V. set, stopped production and no spare parts were available. With great difficulty, he purchased the spare parts and effected the repairs of the T.V. set. He has not charged anything for the repairs effected to the T.V. set. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. THE Forum below however did not order payment of any compensation for the mental agony and anguish stated to have been sustained by the complainant. THE Forum below directed the opposite party only to refund the repair charges of Rs. 2,400/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 11.5.1995 till realisation besides awarding cost of Rs. 500/-. THE Forum below directed the award amount to be paid within a month from the date of its order. THE complaint in other respect was however dismissed. Aggrieved by the order as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by himself without engaging a Counsel of his choice. On service of process, the respondent/complainant entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. M.B. Ramanujam and K. Ganesan.

WHEN this matter came up for hearing before us today, the appellant/opposite party is not present in Court to project his hues of views. Likewise, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant is also called absent and no representation was made on his behalf.

THE fact that neither the appellant nor learned Counsel representing the respondent is not evincing any interest in the proceedings does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits on perusal of the materials placed on record. That is exactly what we have done in this case. Even at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in the appeal. It is seen from the invoice Ex. A1 that the opposite party received a sum of Rs. 2,400/- from the complainant towards repair charges after giving a remission of Rs. 35/-. Pertinent it is to mention here that the opposite party has not disputed the genuineness of Ex. A1. Such being the case, it is futile for the opposite party to contend that he had not received any amount towards service charges. The opposite party having received the service charges, it cannot at all be stated that the complainant had not at all hired the services of the opposite party for consideration. Such being the case, it goes without saying that the complainant must have to be construed as a consumer qua the opposite party.

The opposite party having received the charges for rendering the service, it is but proper for him to effect repairs to the T.V. set and make it function. He had not done so. What he would plead in the version filed is that the T.V. set being very old in the sense of production having been stopped by the Company which produced the T.V., it is very difficult to get the spare parts and rectify the defects in the same. If such be the case, he could have very well stated to the complainant that it is very difficult to rectify the defects in the T.V. and it is not worthwhile to spend any amount in rectification of the defects in the T.V. He had not told so. He had received a sizeble sum of Rs. 2,400/- for repair charges as evidenced by Ex. A1. Such being the case, there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Forum below on such aspect of the matter cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. The Forum below, after all, directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 2,400/-, the repair charges he had received from the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from 11.5.1995 till realisation. It has not awarded any compensation for the mental agony and anguish suffered by the complainant in view of grant of interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of repair charges received by the opposite party. The Forum below also awarded cost in a sum of Rs. 500/- which is reasonable, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In such circumstances, the appeal has to necessarily fail.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.