MANAGING DIRECTOR, KONARK TELEVISION LTD vs MADHUSUDAN PARIDA

THE opposite party in C.D. Case No. 64 of 1991 before the District Forum, Khurdha, Bhubaneswar is the appellant in this appeal. THE respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case for the defect in goods and deficiency in service in respect of a T.V. set which he had purchased on 28.12.1988 from the present appellant. According to the complainant-respondent, it developed defects almost from the date of purchase and he had to incur heavy expenditure for its repair. His case is that the T.V. set was brought to the present appellant on 14.10.90 for its repair and it was repaired on payment of Rs. 907.68p. though after repair the T.V. set gave proper service, it developed defects again for which it was again brought to the appellant on 21.6.91. He prayed for replacement of the T.V. set or the defective parts and he is also entitled to compensation for the harassment and mental agony.

THE present appellant as opposite party filed a show cause denying their liability. THEir stand was that the T.V. set was perfectly in good working condition on the date of its sale and admittedly for two years thereafter as the same was brought for repair on 14.10.90 after the expiry of the warranty period. It was also stated in the show cause that since the T.V. was brought for repair by change of appropriate parts which had developed defects beyond the warranty period, the complainant was liable to pay the cost of repair which he did pay. THEy have further alleged that the T.V. set thereafter also functioned properly for one year more when the defect again cropped up. Before bringing the T.V. for repair to the present appellant, the complainant filed this case before the District Forum and without knowing that the case had already been instituted by the complainant the present appellant repaired the T.V. set. THE second repair effected was a minor defect according to the present appellant. The District Forum after going through the case of both parties and after giving opportunity to both parties to be heard concluded that the defect appearing in the T.V. set on 14.10.90 though beyond the warranty period was within the normal life span of a T.V. set and therefore it was not proper on the part of the present appellant to realise money from the respondent for the repair then effected. It also found that since the T.V. set is repeatedly developing defects, it is the duty of the present appellant to set it right. The District Forum directed that the amount of Rs. 907.68p. realised from the present respondent for the repair effected on 14.10.90 should be refunded to him within a month from the date of the order and in the event of his failure to do so he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.10.90 till the date of payment. The respondent was also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this appeal.

It has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the T.V. set which was sold to the respondent was not a defective one inasmuch as it did not give any trouble whatsoever till 14.10.90. On 14.10.90 when the T.V. set was brought to the appellant for repair the same being beyond the warranty period, the Company was justified in realising the cost of the parts after giving appropriate rebate from the respondent for repair of the TV. According to him by the said repair, the T.V. set performed all right and till the institution of this proceeding, no defect whatsoever was brought to the notice of the Company. It is only after the institution of the proceeding that the T.V. set was brought to the appellant at a point of time when notice on the opposite party had not been served. Since the T.V. set was again received for repair it was found that the defect developed was a minor one. He, therefore/ submits that there was no justification for a direction to the present appellant for refund of the money realised from the respondent as repair charges for the repair effected in the year 1990 and there was also no justification for awarding the compensation as there had never been any deficiency in rendering any service to the respondent.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both parties at length/ we find that it was neither the case of the complainant-respondent that there was any manufacturing defect in the T.V. set in respect of the defects developed in October, 1990 nor it is the case of the respondent that the defect then noticed was referable to improper use of the T.V. and not due to any manufacturing defect. The fact, however, remains that the respondent paid the repair charges for the repairs effected on 14.10.90 and did not make any grievance till it again developed defect about a year after in the year 1991. Thus the respondent had accepted the liability of payment of the repair charges on 14.10.90 and remained satisfied. He did not make out a case even in the present proceeding that the defect which arose in the year 1990 was due to any manufacturing defect in the component parts of the T.V. In the absence of any evidence it is not possible for this Commission to record a finding as to whether the parts replaced in the year 1990 and the nature of defect appeared therein were referable to any manufacturing defect or due to improper use of the T.V. Since the respondent accepted the liability to pay for the repair and in fact paid the demanded amount and used the T.V. for one year more, the grievance in that respect in our opinion has become stale and should not be re-opened in the present case. That being the position/ the direction for refund of the repair charges is unfounded. It is the admitted case of both parties that there has been no delay in effecting the repairs whenever the T.V. set was brought to the present appellant. We, therefore, do not find any justification for awarding compensation. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order directing the present appellant to refund the repair charges realised from the respondent in the year 1990 and also the direction for pay ment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. We, however/ clarify that the present appellant shall not realise any repair charges for the repair effected in the year 1991, which according to the appellant was a minor defect. Appeal allowed.