M MONEYLAL Vs. ANIRUDHAN K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kollam in OP No.1035/ 93. The opposite party is the appellant.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that he entrusted TV for repairs with the opposite party on 25.9.93 and the opposite party collected Rs.70/- each on 26.9.93 and 27.9.93 but did not repair and bring the TV to working condition and TV was delivered to the complainant representing that the TV could not be repaired. On the same day complainant took the TV to an authorised service centre and got it examined and found that the picture tube was tampered with. The complainant there upon approached the opposite party and claimed compensation. He alleged that the opposite party is not a quailfied technician and was not competent to repair and the picture tube got damaged because of his bad handling. He had a loss of Rs.8,500/- for replacing the picture tube and meet other incidental expenses. It is in those circumstances the complaint was filed claiming a total amount of Rs.9,500/-

(3.) In the version filed by the opposite party he contended, that it is true that the complainant approached him with the TV which was not functioning and on examination it was found that the transistor of the TV was defective and the matter was intimated to the complainant. The complainant promised to come again on 27.9.93. The complainant approached the opposite party again and gave necessary information for purchase of transistor code from out side. However the complainant was not willing to purchase. Thereupon the opposite party took Rs.70/- from the complainant and went to a shop and purchased transistor. The complainant agreed to come again on 28.9.93 for taking back the TV. The complainant came on the evening of 28.9.93 and examined the TV which was repaired and was satisfied that it was functioning well No amount was received by him for replacing the IC. The other contentions were also denied.