MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD. vs M.C. Manickam

THE complainant purchased an ONIDA TV from the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant, the supplier replaced the picture tube but failed to return the picture tube and has not deducted the value of the old picture tube and therefore the complainant sent a notice to pay the cost of the replaced picture tube and to rectify the defect. But though the 2nd opposite party rectified the defect, they have not paid the cost of the picture tube. Thus there is deficiency in service which the opposite parties are liable to make good to the petitioner.

THIS complaint was accepted by the District Forum which granted an award for Rs. 5,500/- against which the present appeal has been filed. The present case is one filed to recover the cost of the picture tube removed by the company. Since the Television set purchased by the petitioner developed some functional problem, it was sent for repairs by the complainant and they charged a sum of Rs. 9,501/- to make the television set operational. From Ex. A-7, we find that a sum of Rs. 8,961/- was incurred towards the replacement of picture tube and a sum of Rs. 540/- was received towards the AMC charges. The complainant would say that the charges were incurred for replacing the old picture tube with a new one but the opposite parties have omitted to return the old picture tube or deduct the cost of the same from the price of the new one, and thus there was deficiency in service. This contention found favour with the District Forum. The District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards the value of the removed picture tube and Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony.

It is not known as to how this amount viz., Rs. 3,000/- was arrived at by the District Forum as the value of the picture tube. There is also nothing to show that the picture tube that was removed could be repaired and put to use. But in the version, they have not stated the value of the picture tube and they have simply stated that there was a defective picture tube. They have also stated the defective picture tube cannot be put to use again and the same could be recycled. Therefore, unless it is established that the picture tube which was removed by the appellants could be put to use again, it is not possible to hold that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service in this regard. Therefore, in our opinion, we do not find any valid ground to uphold the award passed by the District Forum.

CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed setting, aside the award, passed by the District Forum. The complaint, shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances, both the parties will bear the costs here and before the District Forum. Appeal allowed.