VAMALINGAM vs NDS COMPUTERS (P) LTD, HYDERABAD

THE case of the complainant in C.D. No. 1780/93, District Forum, Hyderabad is that he purchased a TV on 29.6.90 for consideration of Rs. 6,650/- with warranty period of one year. According to the complainant, the TV worked satisfactorily for about 10 or 11 months and thereafter it started giving trouble. THE complainant lodged a complaint with the dealer and the technician of the opposite party visited his residence. It is the further case of the complainant that on 30.11.91 he took the T.V. to the service centre of the opposite party for repairs for which the opposite party issued a job card and delivered it back after repairs. But even thereafter the performance was not satisfactory. THE complainant, therefore, once again on 31.1.92 gave the TV at the service centre of the opposite party and the opposite party repaired the same under the job card No. 1585 dated 29.4.92 as evidenced by Ex. A 7. It is the case of the complainant that even thereafter, the TV is giving trouble in spite of it being repaired once again as evidenced by Ex. A 8. He, therefore, filed a complaint either for replacement of the TV with a new one or for refund of the price paid by him.

THE opposite party was set ex-parte. The District Forum found that even according to the complainant for about 11 months of the purchase there was no repair to the TV and it worked satisfactorily. It was only on 30.11.91, that is, after expiry of the warranty period, he took the TV to the service centre for repairs and as could be seen from Ex. A6, A 7 and A8 the opposite party repaired the TV and gave it back to the complainant. The District Forum also found that since almost during the entire warranty period there was no complaint of any manufacturing defect by the complainant, and if any repairs effected after the warranty, the opposite party is entitled to charge for the same. It further found that IC alone had become defective during the warranty period and the opposite party replaced the IC. It, therefore, cannot be said that any manufacturing defect in the TV was made out by the complainant. It, therefore, directed the opposite party to repair the said TV after collecting charges from the complainant for the repairs including cost of the parts replaced and to deliver the same to the complainant.

In this appeal preferred, it is submitted that there is a manufacturing defect and therefore, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the TV with a new TV. We are not inclined to agree. It appears that the TV was taken for repairs in November, 1991 and it was purchased in the year 1990. In the absence of manufacturing defect, as the TV was given for repairs to the opposite party only after expiry of the warranty period, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the TV. There are no merits in this appeal. Apart from there being no merits in this, the appeal is filed with a petition to condone delay of 7 days. It was mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condoning the delay that the complainant received the copy of the order on 6.5.96 and that the last date for filing the appeal was 5.6.96, but the complainant had gone out of station to attend the marriage of his close relative and, therefore, he could not contact the Counsel for getting appeal prepared. It is only when he returned on 11.6.96 after the marriage, he filed the appeal and, therefore, the delay is neither wanton nor due to any negligence. Except stating that he has attended the marriage of his close relative and returned only on 11.6.96, there is no material produced in support of the plea as to what is the date of the marriage and who is his close relative and the place in which he attended the marriage. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed for condoning the delay. There is also no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

IN the result, the petition for condoning the delay is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs in this petition. Appeal rejected.