SHRI SANT ELECTRONICS vs SHASHI BHUSHAN

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.5.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 480/1991.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the opposite party No. 1 is the dealer of Videocon televisions. One colour TV set was purchased by the complainant in 1990 for a sum of Rs. 10,649/- including the antenna, cable, etc. THE complainant was assured at that time that since there is no new packed piece, the set in question shall be replaced within a week. THE complainant paid the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on this assurance for which a receipt was issued. No guarantee or warranty was given to the complainant. After several requests and reminders to the opposite party No. 1, the TV set was not replaced by a new one. THE set was not working satisfactorily from the very beginning of its purchase. THE complainant suffered a lot mentally and prayed for refund of the price of the T.V. set alongwith interest. The opposite party in the written version has admitted selling of the TV set of one 51 cm. colour alongwith antenna and cable. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 659/- was due against the complainant which he did not pay in spite of several demands. It is further alleged that the old TV set was not sold but a new TV set was sold. The allegations to the contrary are wrong.

The learned Distict Forum after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that old TV set was given by the opposite party No. 1 and hence it directed for replacement of the set within a period of two months from the date of judgment and if the set is not replaced then the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with 12% per annum interest shall be payable by the opposite party No. 1. It further directed that if the amount is not paid within two months then the rate of interest shall be charged at the rate of 18% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order of the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the complainant in person.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the old TV set was sold to the complainant. According to learned Counsel no evidence has been filed by the complainant to show that the appellant ever undertook to replace the set purchased by him. The complainant has not filed any evidence by which it can be inferred that the television set which was sold was an old one. It does not appeal to reason that a person who is spending Rs. 10,000/- will take away an old defective TV set instead of a new set and would have taken trouble to get the set replaced. Generally new sets are sold to the customers. If there was any such undertaking as alleged by the complainant then it would have been got incorporated on the cash memo. There is no such entry on the cash memo. There is no such entry of replacement of old TV set with a new one. Thus the complainant''s case cannot be believed and deserved to be rejected. The findings of the learned District Forum on the contrary cannot be confirmed. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed. Order The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and complaint dismissed.

THE parties shall bear their own cost.

LET copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.