THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD vs S SATHYAMOORTHY

THE 1st opposite party in O. P. No. 64/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Trichy, is the appellant herein.

THE grievance of the complainant was that a new T. V. set manufactured by the 1st opposite party and purchased from the 2nd opposite party their dealer did not work from day one. The further case of the complainant was that in spite of the opposite parties having been approached by him several times, the opposite parties did not care to have the television repaired. This drove him to the Consumer Forum. The opposite parties defended the action contending inter alia that there was no manufacturing defect in the set that in any event when the engineer deputed by them went to the residence of the complainant he was refused entry and was not allowed to handle the T. V. with the result he had to return without doing the job.

Before the District Forum, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who, with the assistance of an expert examined the T. V. set and filed a report.

BEFORE the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A7 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. The Advocate Commissioner''s report along with the Engineer''s report came to be marked as Ex. C1. On the side of the opposite parties, two witnesses were examined. The District Forum found that the set suffered from manufacturing defect and either had to be replaced with a new set or the price of the set should be refunded. The District Forum also directed payment of Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

THE main point urged on behalf of the appellant/1st opposite party was that when the Advocate Commissioner along with the expert examined the T. V. set, it was found that it had already been tampered with that the wire connections had been disconnected and soldering was not proper. This would only mean that the complainant on his own had engaged some body else to look into the problem. One of the conditions of warranty between the parties is that during the warranty period except the authorised machanic engineer of the opposite parties, no body else should tamper with the set and if it was done, then the warranty would lapse. The fact that some body else had opened the set is referred to in the under of the District Forum. Notwithstanding that the District Forum chose to pass an order against the opposite parties directing them to replace the set or refund the monety together with Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost. It is also to be noted that the District Forum has mentioned in page 8 of the order that the complainant had stated that he handed over the T. V. to the 2nd opposite party after finding that the T. V. was not in a working condition but this allegation is not found in the complaint. We are convinced that the repair of the T. V. was undertaken by some third person the consequence of which would be lapsing of the warranty with the opposite parties. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the District Forum. Hence, we do not agree with the finding and the consequent order of the District Forum. The appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint shall stand dismissed. No cost. Appeal allowed.