M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party, in OP.No.132/2003 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South), aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dt.9.1.2006, impugned the same before us in this appeal.
(2.) The complainant/ Respondent in the appeal, having paid a sum of Rs.600/- as service charge or repair charge, requested the opposite party to rectify the mistake or the defect occurred in his solidaire TV on 9.4.2002. There was no immediate response , resulting number of letters by the complainant, the opposite party failed to execute the service work, as agreed, allowing the television to remain still in faulty condition, and un useful. Because of the deficiency committed, the opposite party should be directed to refund a sum of Rs.600/- with interest thereon, and in addition they should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, as well cost of Rs.2000/-.
(3.) The opposite party in its elaborate written version, denying the averments in the complaint, would contend that they did not supply/repair any component in the TV, and it was only erecting an antenna, which was done, that because of the change of location viz. many sky raising buildings have come around the residence of the complainant, the antenna also failed to receive the reception, the further fact being the TV itself is an old black and white, unable to receive the reception, and this being the position, there is no question of deficiency in service, warranting any compensation, much less refund of the amount, since antenna was supplied.;