DILA RAM VERMA Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 1 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. 1 to get the matter attended to respondent No.1 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 by unsatisfactory repairs of the television set and/or pay him a sum of Rs. 15,000 alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from 29.1.2002 alongwith compensation of Rs. 20,000 towards harassment and mental agony. Respondents while admitting that the petitioner had brought an Onida colour television set and after the period of warranty made some complaints about its functioning for which a Technician has 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 repair 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 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 considering the evidence on record dismissed the complaint by observing as follows:

(2.) XXX XXX XXX

(3.) Aggrieved by this order petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.