MD.FIROZ AHMED vs ASWIN KUMAR DAS

THIS is an appeal by the opp. party under Section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

CASE of complainant is that be purchased a colour T.V. set manufactured by Weston Electronics Limited from the appellant on 2.12.1989 with warranty till 1.12.1990. On 13.6.1990, the set became out of order which was repaired by the appellant on 25.6.1990. Next day the T.V. set went out of order again. Despite repeated request, it was not repaired and complainant was asked to send it to the service, centre. T.V. set was sent to the service centre at Arad Bazar, Balasore. On 31.8.1990 when complainant enquired about the set, he was informed that the set could not be repaired for which he was given another new T.V. set in exchange. The said T.V. set also gave same problems and complainant returned it. But, he was not given back the T.V. set originally sent for repair. Therefore, complaint was filed for directing opp. party to give a new T.V. set of the same model in exchange or refund the price thereof. Appellant appeared and filed objection denying the allegation made by the complainant. He stated that on 31.8.1990 one Weston colour T.V. set was given to the complainant till his original T, V purchased by him is repaired. After repair, T.V. engineer delivered the original set to the complainant. Although complainant promised to return the second T.V. set after two days, he failed to do so. A letter was sent on 9.1.1991 to complainant to return it, but complainant did not return the same. In view of the dispute, parties discussed and a settlement was reached after some days and appellant agreed to give a Videocon colour-TV. subject to payment of extra cost. Accordingly, on 30.4.1991 complainant took the videocon T.V. set but did not return second Weston T.V. taken by him from opp. party No. 1. Appellant pleaded that complainant tried to harass him and defame his good will for which complaint had made on false grounds.

Affidavits and documents were filed by both the parties before the District Forum, in support of their respective versions On consideration of the same, District Forum found that there is no cogent evidence on side of the appellant that complainant had taken back another Weston T.V. set on or after 1.9.1990. Considering letter dated 9.1.1991 addressed to complainant, it was held that there is no evidence to show that T.V. No. 14606 was to be exchanged for the original T.V. No 12376 sold to the complainant. District Forum did not believe case of appellant on the ground that without issuing any challan which is the procedure adopted by the appellant, he would not have delivered another Weston set to the complainant. Thus, case of complainant is more probable. Accordingly, it directed the appellant to replace the weston T.V. No. 12376 sold to the1 respondents by a new T.V. of similar make or refund the price of Rs. 13,896/- to the complainant. This is grievance of the appellant.

MR. D. Chatterjee learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that District Forum has not taken into consideration the admitted facts. In the complaint, it has clearly been mentioned that a second T.V. set was given to the complainant. He referred to paragraph-8 of the complaint where it is stated that on 31.8.1990, complainant brought a new one of the same model in exchange of the set which was sold originally. In the complaint, it is not stated that the T.V. set was returned back to the appellant. In paragraph-8 of the affidavit dated 6.9.1991, complainant stated that appellant has received back the Cetorn IX T.V. and though in exchange delivered one Videocon, the same was also returned by the. complainant as per the demand of the opp. party with proper receipts. From the narration of events, it is clear that respondent purchased one Weston T.V. set. The said set was defective. A second set was given in place of the first one. That set also became, defective. In exchange, appellant delivered one videocon T.V It is therefore, to be examined whether transaction relating to Weston T.V. set, thus, became complete and the new transaction continued with videocon T.V. set.

DOCUMENTS and affidavits reveal that parties were very much active in the matter of the transaction relating to T.V. set even after complaint was filed on 22.9.1990. All facts and circumstances are to be taken into consideration to find out whether there is defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service rendered which would be the basis of the decision. In case, taking back the. videocon T.V. set is grievance it is to be examined if the same, is goods supplied for price. Parties should get opportunity to clearly state their respective cases and it stands now and support the. same with further affidavits or documents as advised. In view of the aforesaid discussion, direction for return of the set or payment of the price on the materials available cannot be sustained. Order is set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.