AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 371 wordsOPPOSITE party is the appellant.
CASE of complainant is that he gave a television set for repair for which opposite party granted a receipt. The television has neither been repaired nor returned. He has produced the receipt obtained from opposite party. Case of opposite party is that he received the television set, granted the receipt and finding that the picture tube is to be replaced, wanted the documents in order to request the manufacturer for replacing the same. Complainant did not produce those documents and wanted to take return of the television set next day. Television set was returned back. Since complainant stated that he has not brought the receipt, the same was not collected from him.
Complainant examined himself as a witness. Opposite party has filed an affidavit of the salesman that the television set has been returned. Opposite party suggested to complainant in course of cross-examination that in case complainant puts his hand on head of his son and says that he has not got return of the television set, he is prepared to pay compensation. Complainant has declined the said suggestion.
DISTRICT Forum on consideration of materials has held that opposite party has taken back the television set for repair and has not returned the same which is a deficiency in service. On that basis, direction given being unreasonable, this appeal has been preferred. Oral version of complainant and affidavit of salesman are counter to each other, relating to return of television set. Conduct of the complainant in not claiming return of the television set for long period of one year before filing complaint is a circumstance to reduce the weight of the receipt in his possession. However, these aspects have not been considered by the District Forum. On the materials, we are satisfied that a finding of negligence of opposite party or deficiency in service cannot be given. The matter is to be adjudicated in a Civil Court. On the short ground we disagree with the District Forum that the direction ought to have been given to opposite party under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
IN result, appeal is allowed. Liberty is given to complainant to approach Civil Court. Appeal allowed.