K.K.PRABHAKARAN vs P.M.SURESH

THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 214/99 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode are the appellants.

COMPLAINANT alleged before the District Forum that the opposite parties sold a TV stating that the same is a new one, as a matter of fact the TV was not a new one but was a second hand. Therefore, he wanted redressal. In their joint version opposite parties denied the said allegation and wanted the complaint to be dismissed. Before the District Forum the complainant produced Exbts. P1 to P6 and got himself examined as P.W. 1. The opposite party No. 2 gave evidence of R.W. 1.

On an appreciation of the said evidence the District Forum found that there is deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice and, therefore, made a direction to return the purchase price of the TV with compensation; interest and costs were also allowed. The said direction is under challenge in this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the District Forum is infirm as according to the learned Counsel there was no material to find either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Learned Counsel maintained that Narayanan mentioned in the impugned order since opted to purchase another TV it so happened that his name was written in the warranty card; that cannot, according to the learned Counsel, lead to an inference that the TV in question was a second hand one. The District Forum discusses the evidence in paras 6 and 7 of the impugned order. It is pointed out in para 7 that though R.W. 1 said that Narayanan wanted to purchase the TV on the same day of his opting to purchase another instead of the TV in question, Exbt. R2 bill book produced by the opposite party does not show sale of TV to Narayanan. Therefore, the case of the complainant that Narayanan opted to purchase another TV and he was sold another one in the place of TV in question on the same day, stands disproved. Therefore, the reasoning of the District Forum cannot be faulted.

THE learned Counsel also raised the contention of limitation maintaining that though the TV was purchased on 3.11.1995 the complaint was filed only in 1999. This argument also cannot be accepted because the cause of action could arise only on the discovery of the latent infirmity in the goods sold; that discovery was made only on examining the warranty card. THE cause of action could arise only on that day. So understood we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel when he submitted that the order of the District Forum is infirm and calls for interference by this Commission. THEre is no merit in the appeal, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.