PROPRIETOR, NELLAI ELECTRONICS vs KAMALAM SELVARAJ

THE 2 opposite parties against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum are the appellants. THE complainant had purchased a Nelco Blue Diamond C.D. 2045-D colour television set from the 1st opposite party dealer of the 2nd opposite party manufacturer on 23.12.1993. THE case of the complainant Kamala Selvaraj is that on 27.12.1993 the 1st opposite party was informed about the non-functioning of the television set. In response thereof a mechanic from the 1st opposite party came on 6.1.1994 to the house of the complainant and he did some repair work for 1 hours but it was of no use. On his instructions the set was taken to the 1st opposite party on 7.1.1994. THE complainant was not given any job card. THE complainant was asked to come after 4 days. THEn the complainant went to the 1st opposite party accordingly. Still the T.V. had not been repaired. Even thereafter for a long time the defect in the T.V. was not set right. In the meanwhile the complainant was informed that some spare parts could not be secured. She was informed that the Circuit Board was taken to Madurai on 26.2.1994. Only after 2 months since the date of delivery to the 1st opposite party, the complainant was informed that the picture tube had to be replaced. When the complainant then asked for job card she was informed that job card would be issued from that date only and not from 7.1.1994. According to the complainant the picture tube had become defective only because of the negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party because there was no defect in the picture tube when the T.V. was given to the 1st opposite party for repair work. THErefore the complaint has been filed for direction to the opposite parties to set right the defects in the T.V. and fix a new picture tube and then hand over the T.V. to the complainant and also to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and other expenses.

THE opposite parties contended that since the T.V. was handed over to them for repair after the guarantee period, they were not responsible for any defect in the T.V. THEy further contended that earlier the complainant had got the T.V. repaired by some others and she was warned that she should not do so. When the 1st opposite party''s mechanic went to the complainant to repair the T.V., the T.V. was not functioning at all and since he could not repair the T.V. there itself the complainant was asked to bring the T.V. to the 1st opposite party''s premises and then at Madurai when the defect in the circuit board was rectified and then examined, the defect in the picture tube was detected. It is not correct to say that the picture tube became defective on account of any negligence on the part of the opposite party. THEy further contended that they had spent a sum of Rs. 2,530/- for rectifying the defects in the T.V. and on payment of that amount the complainant could take delivery of the T.V. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence held that it was only due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party the picture tube had become defective. It then ordered the opposite party to replace the picture tube with a new one and then after obtaining payment for the other repair done by the opposite party, deliver back the T.V. with a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for mental agony and also a cost of the proceedings of Rs. 250/-.

Now in the appeal, it is contended that the order of the District Forum is against tine facts of the case and it is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. After careful consideration of the matter, we find that there is much force in this contention. Even in the complaint in Para 4, it has been clearly stated that from 23.12.1993 the T.V. was not functioning. But later the complainant would say that at the time the opposite party''s mechanic was trying to repair the T.V., the picture clearly appeared but intermittently. According to the opposite parties after the repair of the circuit board it was found that the picture tube was defective. From this it appears quite possible that there was no functioning of the picture tube even from 23.12.1993. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that it was only because of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties the picture tube had become defective and it was alright when the T.V. was brought to the 1st opposite party.

AS regards the allegation that the opposite party took 2 months for repairing the T.V., it must be remembered that the guarantee period was already over and only thereafter the T.V. was given to the 1st opposite party for repair. There was no agreement that the repair work must be done within certain days. According to the opposite party the T.V. had to be taken from Tirunelveli to Madurai and the circuit board had to be repaired there. It is their further case, as seen above, that only after the circuit board was repaired it was found that the picture tube was defective. According to the District Forum the opposite party had not given job card. AS to this the opposite party would submit that when repair is done in the house of the consumer or when the T.V. has to be taken to the Service Centre job card will not be given. This submission of the opposite party cannot be dismissed as untenable. In the complaint itself in para 6, it has been clearly stated that the 1st opposite party informed the husband of the complainant that for repairing the T.V. one spare part could not be secured and one Engineer from Madurai would have to bring it and he had further stated that one Engineer in Madurai had taken the circuit board there. In these circumstances, it would appear that the opposite parties were not negligent or lethargic in the repair work and in fact they were trying to repair the T.V. and giving it to the complainant. It is therefore difficult to hold that the picture tube had become defective on account of the negligence on the part of the opposite party. Therefore that part of the order of the District Forum that the opposite party shall replace the picture tube in the T.V. cannot be maintained as correct. In the result, we order that the complainant is entitled to take delivery of the T.V. after payment of the repair charges of Rs. 2,530/- to the opposite party. The complainant will not be entitled to any other relief. Accordingly the appeal is ordered. There will be nor order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.