B P L SERVICE CENTRE Vs. MOHD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. RESPONDENT had delivered his C. D. player to the appellant for repairs on 2.5.2002. After having examined the defect in the C. D. player, the appellant had required the respondent to pay Rs.200/- as labour charges and to pay the cost of the spare parts, which might be necessitated for repairing the C. D. player. Condition No.4 provided that in the event of the cost of spare parts exceeding Rs.400/-, the appellant would seek the consent of the respondent to replace the defective parts. The case of the respondent was that despite his demand for delivery of the C. D. player after necessary repairs, the appellant did not deliver the same on the ground that spare parts worth Rs.1810/- had been replaced and that the respondent was required to pay the aforesaid amount in order to take delivery of the repaired C. D. player. The D. F. has however found that the complaint was filed on 22.7.2002 and it was after filing the complaint by the respondent that the appellant had allegedly issued a letter on 22.8.2002 to the respondent requiring him to take delivery of the repaired C. D. player. The D. F. further observed that even the service of the so-called letter of the appellant dated 22.8.2002 was not proved.

(2.) Taking into account all the facts the D. F. directed that on respondent's making a payment of Rs.1,810/- to him, the appellant would deliver the repaired C. D. player along with the defective spare parts removed from the C. D. player. The D. F. further required the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation to the respondent.

(3.) Since the appellant had obtained the C. D. player for repairs on 2.5.2002 but the same was not delivered by him to the respondent after repairs within the period as agreed between the parties and he tried to realise an amount of Rs.1,810/- from the respondent in contravention of condition No.4, the D. F. was justified in making its order in the manner it did.