DEEP ELECTRONICS vs SANJAY SITA KANT BHALERAO

IN this appeal the appellant has come in appeal against the order of District Forum, Ahmednagar dated 27.9.91 passed in complaint No. 48/91. The respondent No. 1, S.S. Bhalerao complained to the District Forum, Ahmednagar alleging that picture tube of his T.V. set was defective within the warranty period and, therefore had claimed the replacement of a new tube. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and ordered both the Dealer and manufacturer to replace the picture tube by new picture tube upto the satisfaction of the complainant and also awarded costs of Rs. 100/-. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this appeal by the dealer only and the manufacturer Uptron INdia Ltd. did not file any appeal.

THE appellant has been heard through Shri R.P. Thakur, Advocate. Shri Darvekar, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 manufacturer was represented by Shri S.V. Ranganekar, Service Incharge. According to Shri Thakur, the warranty cards placed on record of the District Forum are blank and, therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint was made by the complainant within the warranty period. During the course of argument, it was admitted that the warranty card in the file of the District Forum bearing Uptron Instructions Manual UV603 and 606 are issued by the dealer. It is also admitted that the warranty card is genuine and issued by the Uptron India Ltd. A perusal of the warranty form appended to the instruction mannual is blank. No period of warranty can be found in that card apart from the claim of the appellant that the warranty period is of one year from the date of purchase of T.V. set. We find that it is the duty of the Dealer to deliver to a consumer the warranty card duly and properly filled in. If no such formality is observed by the Dealer, then it is the deficiency in the service. A dealer cannot be negligent in giving the blank warranty card to a consumer and than make grievance about it blaming the consumer. The responsibility of giving a proper warranty card duly signed and dated is always on the Dealer. In absence of details on the warranty card, in question, we are not prepared to hold that the warranty in respect of the T.V. set in question was for a period of one year.

Another grievance made by Shri Thakur is that the complaint made a mistake in writing to the manufacturer directly. As against this argument, it has been submitted by Shri Darvekar that the complainant had repeatedly contacted the dealer pointing out to him to remove the defect in the picture tube with a request to replace it. It is further submitted that the dealer himself gave the address of the manufacturer to the complainant and directed him to make the complaint accordingly. In any case, we find that there was utter negligence on the part of the dealer as well as the manufacturer to deal with a genuine complaint of a consumer, in this case.

WE have carefully gone through the impugned order. WE do not find any infirmity or any illegality in the order of the District Forum, Ahmednagar. In our view, there is no substance in this appeal and, therefore, it must fail. WE find in this case that the complainant has made a grievance about the manufacturing defect in the picture tube. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to replace the tube of the complainant''s, T.V. set. Hence we pass the following order:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is maintained with the modification that either picture tube be replaced by the manufacturer or its price be paid to the respondent, No. 1. The appellant shall pay Rs. 200/- as costs of this appeal to the respondent No. 1. Appeal dismissed.