B.P.L. (INDIA) LTD. vs A.K. KOTHARI ('SOM')

THE appellants, advocate was not present in the Court when the matter was called out for hearing and, therefore, we had passed the order vacating the interim-stay and awarding Rs. 100/- as costs dismissing the appeal for fault.

MR. Shah, the learned Advocate for the appellant appeared after 2.30 p.m. and moved an application for restoration of the appeal, which we have granted. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Shah as also Mr. Kothari, the respondent who is present in person.

Mr. Shah has raised a contention that the decision of the learned District Forum is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as the guarantee which was given for 12 months had expired before the Television was sent for repairs. There- fore, submits Mr. Shah, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to pass any order for extending the guarantee for one year. Again, Mr. Shah has pointed out that such a relief had not been even prayed for by the complainant and, therefore, also the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction.

WE are not happy about the whole incident and we are not convinced about the bonafides of appellant No. 2. WE are of course inclined to accept the submission that the District Forum has exceeded the jurisdiction while passing the order for extending the period of guarantee for one year more; especially when such a prayer had not even been sought by the complainant and the guarantee having expired earlier, during which period nothing had taken place. There was, there- fore, no reason for the District Forum to pass the impugned order. With regard to the other grievances of the appellants, it is very clear from the estimate given by the appellant in writing that Appellant No. 2 had to take instructions from the Insurance Company before he could proceed with the repair work. The District Forum has not believed the say of Appellant No. 2 that the TV set was repaired by Opponent No. 2 upon instructions given by the complainant. Mr. Shah is notable convince us that this observation of the learned District Forum is wrong. The job card is not produced before the District Forum. The Tuner which is alleged to have been replaced, but the non-working tuner has not been produced. The other items which are changed, are also not produced. In these circum- stances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the District Forum.

HOWEVER, Mr. Shah has rightly pointed out that in the complaint, the complainant himself has made an averment that: - "HOWEVER, all of a sudden, after looking to my above action, they are telling that I should take away my TV back without making any payment." If this averment is accepted on its face value, submits Mr. Shah, the learned District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. We, there- fore, asked Mr. Shah to explain as to whether his client was prepared to return the TV without recovering any payment for the repairs, Mr. Shah fairly informed us that such an offer was not made. Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the submissions made by Mr. Shah before us, we are of the opinion that the offer made by Mr. Shah to pay Rs. 1,100/- to the original complainant is quite fair, because in any case, the complainant has been deprived of actual use of the Television for quite a long time. We are, however, not inclined to grant any further relief to the original complainant and, the respondent has already withdrawn his Appeal No. 52 of 1991 earlier. In the result, therefore, we allow this Appeal partly and modify the order passed by the District Forum, Rajkot as under: - ORDER The Appeal is partly allowed. The Appellant shall return the Television Set to the original complainant in perfect working condition within two weeks from today. The appellants will pay to the original complainant, an amount of Rs. 1,100/- as agreed by Mr. J.N. Shah alongwith the TV set, within the same period. The rest of the order passed by the District Forum, extending Guarantee period for one year more, is set aside. The appellants shall not charge any amount for repairing the TV set The Appeal shall thus stand disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.