V.S. GUPTA vs RAJDHANI ELECTRONICS

Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President

THE partly successful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hissar. Prof. V.S. Gupta (complainant) of the Agricultural University, Hissar had purchased a Beltek colour T.V. set from respondent No. 1 M/s. Rajdhani Electronics, Hisar for Rs. 11,400/- on the 16th of October, 1990. It would appear that the said T.V. is as defective initially been the very beginning but, apparently get completely out of order in Jan., 92 and the appellant left the same with the respondent No. 1 for repairing the same. The said set was also covered by insurance with M/s. United Insurance Company Limited and the appellant also informed the said Company about the condition of the set and apparently lodged a claim and the latter even appointed a surveyor, who inspected the T.V. set at the premises of the respondent No. 1. He surprisingly found that the sticker of the brand name and also its serial number plate had been removed from the original places and further that the picture tube has also been removed and instead some old faulty picture tube had been fixed. He accordingly submitted a report to the Insurance Company, but the latter repudiated the claim. Unable to get redress from either the insurers or respondent No. 1, the appellant knocked at the door of the District Forum seeking the replacement of the defective set and a compensation of Rs. 5000/- for mental harassment & financial loss.

On notice being issued, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their replies taking various pleas, to which reference now becomes unnecessary, if not wasteful because no relief against mem was now claimed or pressed by the appellant. However, respondent No. 1 filed a written statement, so replete with contradictions and specious pleas, that the District Forum rightly labelled it to be self contradictory from top to bottom. It seems unnecessary to delve into them because on the one hand the stand taken was that the said T.V. had neither been sold by respondent No. 1 nor entrusted to them for repairs, whilst in the rest of the written statement, the averments were totally at variance therewith.

THE complainant filed a replication, in which he stoutly Forum the respondent No. 1 came round to admit the following facts as recorded in the order under appeal in para 5: "(1) That said T.V. was sold by respondent No. 1 to complainant on 16-10- 1989. (2) Complainant is the owner of colour TV of Beltek Mark. (3) Said TV had become defective in January 1992 and complainant had left the same with respondent No. 1 for repairing purposes. (4) That respondent No. 1 had spared a Black. & White TV to complainant for use and occupation free of charges. (5) That said colour TV is yet with respondent No. 1."

On the aforesaid premise and upon further perusal of the materials, the District Forum categorically observed that they had no hesitation, in holding that the original colour tube was removed from the T.V. set by respondent No. 1 and old ones were inserted in place thereof, apart from tampering with the brand name and the serial number plates etc. On that basis, the District Forum observed that the only point that survive was the nature of the relief to be accorded to the appellant, which was done in the following terms: "In the end we hereby direct the respondent No. 1 to carry out the necessary repairs in the said TV within one month and half of the amount would be borne by the respondent while remaining half thereof would be borne by the complainant who would simultaneously return the Black & White TV. The complaint is accordingly disposed of."

SINCE there is no cross appeal on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and he has also not chosen to put in appearance despite service, the findings of fact against them have achieved finality. The solitary surviving issue is the somewhat curious direction of the District Forum that despite its categoric findings in favour of the appellant-consumer, he would still be bound to pay half of the amounts of the necessary repairs, apart from not adjudicating at all upon the compensation claim of the appellant. Mr. V.S. Gupta, who projected his case in person had forcefully assailed the direction of the District Forum saddling him with 50% of the repairs and denying him any further compensation. It was rightly contended that no logic or rationale for imposing the 50% division of the amount of repairs had been even remotely indicated. There appears to be patent merit in the submissions of the appellant, and the more so in the absence of any appearance on the part of respondent No. 1. It is significant to notice that the latter attempted to take up the patently fallacious stand that the T.V. had neither been sold by them nor entrusted back to them for repairs. This stand is conclusively belied by their own admissions before the District Forum and highlights the unethical and blatent evasion on their part. Nor is it any longer in doubt that apart from the T.V. set having been found defective originally, the same remained in custody of the respondent from January, 1992 onwards for a year and eight months till the order of the District Forum was pronounced on 20th August, 1993 and obviously thereafter as well. It is manifest that not only the same was not repaired, but instead the set was deliberately tampered with valuable parts there of were removed and the brand name and serial number plates effaced or erased. This be-speaks volumes against respondent No. 1 and as already noticed the District Forum has come to conclusive findings on the point which have remained wholly unrebutted. In this context, the mere providing of some used black and white television set by respondent No. 1 during the period was hardly a matter worm recompense. Indeed in the context of the complainant''s stand to have the replacement of a new T.V. set instead of a patently defective one and further compensation for the harassment and worry, therefor, the direction to share even the repairs appears to be only adding insult to injury. On the now concluded findings of fact, the appellant seems to have been saddled with a virtually defective T.V. set right from the date of purchase in 1989 and in any case denied its user for more than a year and eight months, and to crown it all the valuable parts therefrom had been removed and the set otherwise tampered .with by respondent No. 1, who was duty bound to supply the set without any defect and to equally provide sound after-sales service, therefor.

IN view of the above, we are of the view that the appellant cannot possibly be burdened with half the costs of repaid nor denied some compensation the unfair treatment meted out to him by respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the direction of sharing the half the amount of repairs is, therefore, set aside and further the appellant is awarded Rs. 2000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as the costs of this appeal. The District Forum will enforce compliance of the necessary repairs to the T.V. set and the payment of the aforesaid amounts within two months of the date of this order, failing which the rigour of the provisions of Section 27 would inevitably be attracted. Appeal allowed.