MODERN RADIO AND REFRIGERATION CO. vs Vijai Kumar Gupta

-THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 772 of 1997.

INITIALLY a complaint was filed with the allegation that the complainant/opposite party purchased a Akai Colour television set for Rs. 15,800/- which started giving troubles only within 3/4 days of its purchase. After this another TV set was given by the appellant which too started giving troubles within 15 days. Thereafter the complaint was lodged before the learned District Forum for refund of Rs. 15,500/- cost of the TV set as well as compensation. Before the learned District Forum, although opposite party appeared, but did not file any written statement nor any evidence was produced.

Consequently impugned judgment and order have been passed.

THE case has been taken up in the revised list. Mr. C.L. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant is present but no one is present on behalf of the respondent/complainant. Consequently we have heard Mr. Verma and perused the materials available on record as well as the impugned order. Mr. Verma tried to assail the impugned order on two grounds which in our view are not sustainable. The first plea of Mr. Verma is that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant which in the eyes of law was necessary and as such the impugned order is bad as a fragrant violation of one of the principles of natural justice. The aforesaid argument does not survive obviously for the reason that before District Forum the appellant had appeared at one stage, but subsequently did not participate in the further proceedings. It is not a case in which there was at all participation in any proceedings. It was the obligation of the appellant to have participated in the proceedings with a view to contest the complaint, but the same has not been done. Obviously there is no violation of principles of Audi Alteram Partem, i.e., hearing the other side.

THE second plea was that the order on merit does not survive, and there was no deficiency. This argument too is not worthy of acceptance because after payment of Rs. 15,800/- a new Akai TV set was purchased which was found defective within a period of 4-5 days of its purchase and then it was changed by the appellant and that changed TV set had also started functioning defectively within 15 days of its replacement. Thus it was a clear case of deficiency in service as it is a case of sale of a defective TV set. THE learned District Forum instead of finding the case for change of TV only ordered for awarding a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost to be incurred in its repairing. This order is just and proper. Thus the appeal has no force. It has been brought to the notice that in view of the interim order, the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- in the shape of F.D.R. with the District Forum concerned. THE same can now be withdrawn by the complainant to be used for correcting the defects of the TV. ORDER THE appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.