RABIN ARAYAN SAHU vs REGIONAL MANAGER, UPTRON INDIA LTD.

THE complainant''s complaint petition having been dismissed, he is in appeal. THE facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased one Uptron T.V. Set from M/s. Uptron India Ltd., Bapujinagar, Bhubaneswar on 31.5.1988. At that relevant time one M/s. National Music was the dealer at Dhenkanal. Three years thereafter the T.V. Set turned defective. This was handed over to the opposite party No. 3, the proprietor of Modern Electronics, Laxmi Bazar, Dhenkanal who by that time had become the dealer of the Uptron India Ltd., the manufacturer being at Calcutta. Opposite party No. 3 issued a receipt in token of having received the T.V. Set for repair and in his turn he sent it to the Branch Office at Bhubaneswar for repair. But the complainant inspite of persuing the matter, neither got back the T.V. Set nor its price from either of the parties. Hence, moved the District Forum for compensation. THE District Tarum by their impugned order dismissed the complaint petition holding that no doubt the complainant had purchased the particular model of T.V. Set from the opposite party No. 2 but for repair he did not directly hand it over the said T.V. Set to opposite party No. 2 but did so to opposite party No. 3 and therefore, cannot claim any relief against the opposite party No. 2.

WE find this reasoning as totally erroneous and is not acceptable to us. On going through the impugned order and various documents on record it is proved that the complainant was the owner of the T.V. Set in question and he had handed over the said set to respondent No. 3 at Dhenkanal for repair for which the opposite party No. 3 had granted a receipt. It is also proved that opposite party No. 3 also sent it to opposite party No. 2 for its repair and the set has not been given back to the complainant. In such a situation the liability of the opposite parties, i.e. the manufacturer opposite party No. 1 and their service centre at Bhubaneswar opposite party No. 2 on the one hand as well as the dealer opposite party No. 3 on the other hand are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim for compensation. WE find the judgment to be wholly erroneous and accordingly set aside the impugned order and make all the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,759.83 p. with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. WE accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. No cost. Appeal allowed.