Videocon International Ltd. vs BINNY ARORA

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum No. II dated 19.3.1993 directing the appellant to replace the V.C.R. with a new one and pay to Rs. 200/- as costs.

THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent-complainant purchased a V.C.R. manufactured by the appellant on 20.3.91 for a sum of Rs. 16,100/- with one year''s warranty period. THE V.C.R. started giving trouble within a short period of its purchase. Numerous complaints were lodged with the appellant and there complaints were attended to after a gap of few days. THE set did not give satisfactory performance after watching of one or two films. THE V.C.R. was even sent to the workshop of the appellant where it was kept for 17 days without much improvement in its performance. THEreafter the head of the V.C.R. was changed by the appellant even then it did not give satisfactory performance. THE respondent-complainant had to hire V.C.R. for her entertainment since her own V.C.R. did not work. Every month the V.C.R. repairs had to be attended to and 15 complaints were lodged with the appellant. Ultimately the complaint was filed with the District Forum No. II seeking replacement of the V.C.R. or refund of the cost of the V.C.R. with costs. The Opposite Party, appellant on the other hand claimed that the complaints had been attended to promptly and that the set gave good performance. It was alleged that the performance of the V.C.R. was affected on account of the use of very old and low quality cassettes causing the head getting dusty resulting in poor performance. On cleaning of the head performance was satisfactory.

The District Forum has held that the complainant had spent Rs. 16,100/- for a V.C.R. made by a reputed concern like the appellants for her entertainment expecting better performance and not that the expensive V.C.R. should go out of order within 15 days from the date of purchase and thereafter so many complaints changing of the head of the V.C.R. had to be done within the warranty period clearly shows that the V.C.R. supplied to the respondent complainant was a defective piece.

IT is indeed a sad reflection that the V.C.R. had to be sent for repairs so many times within a period of one year, of its purchase. Good sets do not require frequent repairs, but if they do then certainly there is some inherent defect in the V.C.R. The head of the V.C.R. has to be changed within one year, certainly does not reflect its good quality. Further the plea of the appellant that very old and low quality cassettes used by the respondent-complainant is not credible either, because any person who has spent so much money on purchasing at V.C.R. would not like to spoil it. IT also can not be believed that the complainant specially selected bad cassettes for viewing. In view of the aforesaid reasons we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. We consequently, dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.