EDWIN WILLIAMS vs BIRLA ELECTRONICS

FACTS necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are that Mr. Edwin Williams, complainant for short, who is working as a Senior Technical Assistant in the Department of Zoology in Delhi University handed over his 20 inches Canon Colour T.V. to M/s. Birla Electronics, a partnership concern dealing in T.Vs and repairs thereof in Nagia Park, Shakti Nagar, Delhi for servicing and repairs. The CTV was delivered at the Service Centre on 11.1.1990 against receipt issued by opposite party for Rs. 75/- on account of servicing charges. Further case of the complainant was that he was asked to come again on 20.1.1990 to take delivery of the set. Accordingly, the complainant went to the shop. The TV had not been repaired. Instead the complainant was asked to deposit another Rs. 500/- in advance as repairing charges with the understanding that if the amount due was found to be less, the excess amount would be refunded. The complainant was asked to collect the TV after 15/20 days. The complainant made a detailed reference to the various visits made by him as also efforts to contact the opposite party on telephone but he was put off from time-to-time. He suffered great mental pain and agony and ultimately sent a Notice under the Registered cover dated 20.8.1992/4.9.1992 in which all material facts appearing in the complaint were duly set out. The complainant received a reply dated 12.9.1992 from the opposite party in which the main plea taken was that, in fact, in January, 1990 itself, the TV in question had been found to be beyond repair and the complainant was, therefore, advised to take back the TV. Since he failed to take away the TV, two letters dated 30.1.1990 and 14.2.1990 are said to have been written to the complainant, inter alia advising him to take back the TV set failing which he would render himself liable to pay warehousing charges for storage @Rs. 150/per month. The complainant, was/therefore, informed that he could take back delivery of the TV on payment of the said storage charges.

THE case of the complainant was mat the plea of the opposite party was false. THEre was no question of their sending any letter dated 30.1.1990 and/or 14.2.1990 informing the complainant that the T.V. was beyond repair and be collected back. On the contrary, it was only after two years and eight months that in reply to the registered notice, the aforesaid plea was taken by the opposite party. On a consideration of the material before it. District Forum I held (i) the opposite party did not send letters dated 30.1.1990 and 14.2.1990, (ii) the complainant himself slept over the fact that his TV was not being repaired and returned to him till the service of the Legal Notice after more than two and a half years. The complaint was disposed of with a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 500/- deposited by the complainant on account of estimated repair charges alongwith 18% interest thereon w.e.f. date of deposit, namely 20.1.1990 alongwith Rs. 500/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

We have heard me complainant/appellant who argued in person and Mr. P.L.Kathuria, Manager of the opposite party and have carefully gone through the records.

ACCORDING to opposite parties own showing, both the letters dated 30.1.1990 and dated 14.2.1990 were sent by ordinary post. No proof of posting has been produced. Even copies of those letters have not been made available. The circumstances of the case would show that if the opposite party really informed the complainant as alleged by it, and the complainant did not respond/one would expect the opposite party to write a letter under Registered cover or send copies through their Legal Advisor. On the contrary, the facts averred by the complainant are totally consistent with the probabilities of the case and the affidavit in support of those facts filed by the complainant has a ring of truth. The complainant was to gain nothing by closing his eyes to the fact that his T.V. had been damaged beyond repair. Ultimately the plea taken by the opposite party was in reply to the Legal Notice served by the complainant and that too after nearly two years and eight months of the receipt of the T.V. set for repairs. We further find that the initial payment of Rs. 75/- vide receipt in writing issued by the opposite party was on account of servicing. Ten days'' time was more than enough to find out what was wrong with the T.V. set. It is a very significant circumstance that on 20.1.1990, the opposite party obtained a deposit of Rs. 500/- on account of repairs. This means that by that date an estimate of the repairs must have been made and Rs. 500/- represented the amount to cover the expenses on repairs. We are unable to approve the reasoning of the District Forum that the complainant himself slept over the matter. It is totally inconsistent with the probabilities of the case that a middle-income group person would forget about his colour T.V. given for repairs especially after depositing in advance the estimated repair charges. On the contrary, we accept the stand of the complainant that he was making frantic efforts both by personal visits as well as on telephone requesting the opposite party to return me T.V. duly repaired at the earliest possible date. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of the District Forum/allow the Appeal and direct the respondent- (i) To return the CTV within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of damages for the harassment caused to the complainant; (iii) Refund Rs. 500/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 20.1.1990 till date of refund; and (iv) Pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs.

THIS order shall be complied with within four weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which it will be open to the complainant to invoke jurisdiction of the Forum u/Section 27. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties. Appeal disposed of.