KONARK TELEVISION LIMITED vs Rakesh Garg

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4.10.91 passed by the District Forum, Ratna in complaint case No. 53 of 88 directing the appellant who was one of the O.P. before the District Forum to pay Rs. 2,664.96 paise on different account shown in the operative portion of the impugned order.

THE brief facts of the case required for the disposal of the case may be briefly stated. THE respondent, who was the complainant before the District Forum, filed a complaint petition with the averment hereinafter mentioned. THE complainant Rakesh Garg who happens to be an Advocate wanted to purchase a colour T.V. and he asked his brother Sharad Kumar who was complainant No. 2 before the District Forum to purchase a Konark Colour TV for him in the State of Orissa as the price of that TV was less in that State and the complainant No. 2 was in service, at Sambalpur (Orissa). THE complainant No. 2 purchased that ''Konark'' TV from O.P. No. 1 before the District Forum for Rs. 8400.00 on 30.5.87 and thereafter he sent that TV to Patna in the first week of June, 1987 and on the request of his brother. THE Warranty of the TV was transferred to the O.P. No. 3 at Patna on 20.6.87 subject to the deposit of Rs. 50/- as registration fee with O.P. No. 3. But before the transfer was made the TV started giving trouble and the complainant had to take it to the O.P. No. 3 on 18.6.87. Of course O.P. No. 3 did the necessary repairs and charged Rs. 399.96 paise for the replacement of the parts concerned and Rs. 50/- as the service charge. THE T.V. however, started again giving trouble and in spite of several requests made by the complainant No. 1, O.P. No. 3 did not do any thing in the matter and as such the complainant got the TV repaired locally on payment of Rs. 2,215.00. Hence the complainant filed this case before the District Forum claiming the cost incurred by him in getting his TV repaired and also claiming compensation on different accounts and the case was disposed of by the District Forum vide order dated 18.3.89 asking the O.P. No. 3 replace the TV set with a new TV set and also pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-to the complainant No. 1. Opposite party No. 3 came in appeal before this Commission and the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside, and the case was remanded to the District Forum for hearing to determine the liability of the manufacturer namely M/s. Konark Television Limited - O.P. No. 2 and also O.P. No. 1. There after the impugned order has been passed by the District Forum and the appellant has been came in appeal before us.

It may be mentioned that though the case of the complainant is that there was defect in the TV set purchased by him but no evidence has been adduced either in the form of affidavit or by examining witnesses that the alleged defect was a manufacturing defect. As a matter of fact the entire matter was decided by the District Forum without taking any evidence merely on the allegation in the complaint petition and the show cause filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 1 & 3. It may be mentioned that Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act specially lays down that in the case of consumer disputes the matter has to be settled on the basis of evidence produced by the complainant and the opposite party where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegation contained in the complaint or in case where after notice by the complainant, the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within time given by the Forum on the basis of the evidence brought by the complainant. But in this case there is no evidence that there was manufacturing defect. In this situation we fail to see as what was the concrete material before the District Forum to fasten the responsibility on O.P. No. 2.

IN the result, the Commission finds that the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The parties, however, will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.