KAILASH KUMARI vs NARENDRA ELECTRONICS

THE revision petitioner purchased a colour T. V. set on June 26,1986 from the respondent. THE said T.V. set was found to be defective in certain vital respects and since repeated representations made by the petitioner to the respondent for rectifying those defects did not yield any result, the respondent filed a complaint petition before the District Forum, Kota seeking replacement of the defective set by a new T.V. set of the same model which is free from any defect. THE petitioner also claimed recovery of Rs. 2,500/- by way of compensation for the inconvenience etc., caused to her.

THE District Forum after a detailed discussion of the evidence produced before it found that the allegations in the complaint petition were well founded and accordingly allowed the petitioner''s prayer for replacement of the T.V. set with a new set of the same model and also allowed compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner. The matter having been carried in appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan by aggrieved dealer (Opposite Party before the District Forum), the State Commission held that the District Forum was justified in issuing the direction for replacement of the T.V. set by a new set of the same model. However, with respect to the award of compensation made by the District Forum, the State Commission took the view that the question of quantification of compensation had not been approached by the District Forum from the correct perspective. Expressing the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was manifestly excessive the State Commission held that it was reasonable and fair to fix the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs. 500/- only. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was modified by the State Commission by reducing the compensation payable to the petitioner from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the State Commission the petitioner has come up before us with this revision petition.

After hearing the authorised representative of the revision petitioner and carefully going through the records, we have come to the conclusion that the State Commission has taken a too narrow and technical view on the question of quantification of the compensation. It is true that the compensation should not be fixed arbitrarily but only on the basis of well settled legal principles. But in a case like the present one where it is clearly made out that the petitioner was put to a great deal of inconvenience, expense and mental suffering on account of his having been supplied a defective T.V. set and the failure on the part, of the Opposite Party to set right the defects in spite of the petitioner having repeatedly made representations to the dealer and his having taken the set to the dealer for repairs on two or three occasions, it is not right to insist that the aggrieved party should adduce more concrete and specific evidence regarding the inconvenience etc., suffered by him. When a person invests a substantial amount and purchases a T.V. set or any other item of goods, he does so under the reasonable expectation that he would be able to have the effective beneficial use of the article from the date of its purchase. In this case the unrebutted evidence available on record is to the effect that the T.V. set was not functioning properly even from the date of its supply namely June 26,1986 and further trouble developed soon thereafter with the result that the petitioner was deprived of the advantage and benefit of the use of the set for a period of nearly two years. The compensation of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the District Forum on the basis of these facts which were established to its satisfaction cannot, in our view, be legitimately characterised as excessive or unreasonable. In circumstances such as "those obtaining in the present case where it is practically impossible to adduce tangible evidence regarding the actual monetary equivalent of the inconvenience, mental suffering, etc., caused to the petitioner, it is the duty of die concerned Redressal Forum, to assess and determine in the light of all the evidence available in the case what amount would reasonably go to compensate the petitioner for the inconvenience, mental agony, etc. caused to the complainant on account of the negligence of the opposite party. On the application of this principle, we do not find it possible to say that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was excessive or unreasonable. We are therefore constrained to hold that the State Commission has acted illegally and with material irregularity in interfering with the fixation of compensation made by District Forum in the present case.

THE revision petition is accordingly allowed and in supersession of the Order passed by the State Commission the order passed by the District Forum will stand restored. Petition accordingly allowed.