CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

Thomson Multimedia India Pvt Ltd vs Bharata Chandra Banerji

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 29 July 2005 · Citation: 2005 3 CPR 561 : 2005 4 CPJ 157

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K.PATRA , SUBASH MAHTAB J.
Ask AI about this case

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 · 377 words
1.

THE order of the District Forum directing the contesting appellants to replace the T.V. set with a new one of the same model and pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2.

THE respondent No. 1 filed the complaint against the dealer alleging deficiency in service. His case is that he purchased a Thomson colour T.V. set worth Rs. 20,500/ - on 15.10.1997 from the authorised dealer. Its warranty period was for five years. After use of the T.V. set for about seven months it was noticed that there was interruption of its power and pictures were vanishing with rolling lines. The service engineer came and attended the set but it was of no use. As the defects are not rectifiable he filed the complaint for replacement of the set. The case of the contesting appellants is whenever the respondent No. 1 brought to their notice the mal -functioning of the T.V. set the service engineer was deputed to examine and repair the set. The service engineer used to come but he could not rectify the defects. The appellants in their counter denied the allegations made by the respondent No. 1.

3.

THERE is no dispute that within a couple of months of the purchase of T.V. set it started giving trouble on account of which the service engineer had come to examine it. He after examining the set opined that there was some kind of mal -functioning. He endorsed as follows: ''Representatives of Thomson Company are visiting and verified the T.V. for six times (of same problem). The T.V. is not O.K. and it is in knowledge of service representatives of Thomsan Company. Thomson Company will be responsible for....''

From the aforesaid endorsement it is evident that the T.V. set had inherent defects which were not rectifiable. The defects were noticed during the warranty period. The service engineer of the appellants came but he could not bring the T.V. set into proper order. In the circumstances the order of the District Forum for replacement of the T.V. set and grant of compensation cannot be faulted with.

4.

WE do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.