Beltek India Limited vs H.C.SEHGAL

THE appeal is partly allowed. THE opposite parties will severally and jointly pay to the complainant-respondent the amount of Rs. 11,975/- on the condition that the defective T.V. set is returned to the opposite party. No interest will be payable on this amount. (Para 8) ORDER This is an appeal against the order dated 30.6.1993 passed by District Forum, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 654 of 1991.

THE appeal was decided by this Commission on 17.2.1999. THEreafter, the Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashok Mehrotra prayed before the Commission that the judgment and order dated 17.2.1999 be recalled. THE grounds advanced by the appellant were : (1) That the case was fixed for 4.3.1999 where as the judgment was delivered on 17.2.1999. (2) THE appeal was dismissed without appreciating vitality significant point for which it was filed. (3) THE appeal was decided without hearing the arguments. Some other points were raised in the application dated 26.2.1999 which will be death with later on in this judgment.

On scrutiny of the case file it appears that the appeal was fixed for 4.3.1999 and the earlier date was 3.11.1998. The copy of the order sheet dated 2.2.1999 was wrongly reproduced in this file and the same was in respect of another appeal for which the argument were heard. This would also be evident from the report of the Registrar dated 26.2.1999 which is on record. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant were also heard in this regard and the judgment/ order dated 17.2.1999 was allowed to be recalled.

The brief facts of the case stated are that the complainant Sri H.C. Sahgal purchased a Beltek Colour T.V. set model 777-1 Chasis No. 555628. The colour T.V. set was defective from the very beginning. The defects were : (1) Defective operation of channels. Increase and decrease in volume automatically. (2) Frequent change in colour - some time fade and some time deep. (3) Reflections and shadows and double images. (4) Non-operation from V.C.R. The appellants-opposite parties in the complaint stated that the alleged defects in the T. V. set were because of transmission trouble, mala- adjustments and non-adjustment of antena.

THE complainant-respondent in this case in support of his case before the Distt. Forum also filed the report of the technician Sri Haldar who endorsed the defects in the T.V. set as alleged by the complainant. THE opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 pointed out that the report of the technician was wrong and the said technician was not qualified. The learned Distt. Forum after going through the evidence passed impugned order dated 30.6.1993 holding that the T.V. set purchased by the complainant was defective from the beginning and allowed the complaint. The Forum directed that the T.V. set be returned and another colour T.V. set of the choice of the complainant be delivered to the complainant on the prices applicable on 21.11.1991 and the difference of the price in terms of the choice of the complainant will be paid by him. And in case this is not done within a period of one month, an amount of Rs. 11,975/- alongwith interest of 18% from 2.8.1991 be paid to the complainant if he returns the defective colour T.V. set. In addition to this the three opposite parties were also jointly and severaly asked to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant.

WE have gone through the order passed by the learned District Forum and entire evidence alongwith the affidavits of the parties. Arguments of the Counsel Mr. Ashok Mehrotra and Sri Harish Chand Sahgal have also been heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the opposite party-Company was not aggrieved by the judgment passed by the District Forum and was ready to comply with the judgment but the respondent showed his disinclination and never indicated his choice nor had ever identified the model by which the replacement was to be done. The complainant-respondent of this case was required to make the price difference payable and he was also required to deposit the old T.V. set. The registered letter was sent by the Company to the complainant within time but no efforts were made by the complainant to ensure the replacement and pay the difference inspite of requests from the appellant-Company. The appellant-Company had asked the complainant -respondent to pay the difference of Rs. 5,025/- and intimation of this effect was given to him but the registered envelope of this information was not received by the complainant as would be evident from the record made available to the Commission during the arguments. The copies of other record presented in the Distt. Forum were also made available at the time of arguments. This record also indicates that the complainant was not interested in paying the difference. In view of the facts mentioned above, we come to the conclusion that the complainant did not make serious efforts to exchange the T.V. set with the new T.V. set of his choice and pay the difference of price to the appellant-Company. Even during the course of the arguments the complainant-respondent stated that he had purchased a new T.V. set which enforces the claim of the appellant that the complainant was not serious about the defective T.V. set to be exchanged. In the circumstances, charging of interest on the amount of Rs. 11,975/- which was the price of the defective T.V. set would not be appropriate and the ends of justice would be met in case the appellant-Company pays the amount of Rs. 11,975/- to the complainant if the defective T.V. set is deposited back with the shop from which it was purchased. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The opposite parties will severally and jointly pay to the complainant-respondent the amount of Rs. 11,975/- on the condition that the defective T.V. set is returned to the opposite party. No interest will be payable on this amount. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- granted as compensation shall also paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally to the complainant-respondent. The order of the learned District Forum dated 30.6.1993 shall stand modified to this extent. Compliance of this order shall be made within a period of one month. Let copies be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.