A MULLICK Vs. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 8,000/ - on account of damage caused to the picture tube of T.V. on 11.7.1990, as while repairing, the screw driver of the repairing mechanic of the respondent fell upon the picture tube, was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.1998 on the basis of doubtful nature of version of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that mechanic of the respondent visited the premises of the appellant for repair of T.V. set on 11.7.1990 as is demonstrated from the job card. Though the T.V. set started working but after 15 minutes, it stopped showing the picture and when the mechanic was called again, he informed that there was crack in the picture tube due to which the T.V. was not working. When the appellant pointed out that crack in the picture tube has developed because the screw driver with which he was repairing T.V. fell from his hand upon the picture tube, the mechanic refused to accept his negligence. The complaint was lodged by the complainant against the mechanic as well as against the respondent before the M.R.T.P. Commission and others.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent in the complaint lodged by the complainant on 21.8.1990 with M.R.T.P.C. the fact that screw driver fell upon the picture tube from the hands of the mechanic, does not find any mention nor did the appellant explained as to why did he not disclose this fact in the complaint. In the complaint made by the appellant, there are allegations that changing of deflection card may have caused the mal -functioning of the T.V. Be that as it may, the fact remains that T.V. stopped functioning due to crack in the picture tube. The job card produced by the respondent shows that a sum of Rs. 332/ - was charged from the appellant towards the cost of repair and spare parts and service charges. It is not understandable as to why did the respondent not point out the reasons for non -functioning of the T.V. on account of damage to the picture tube. Whatever may be the reasons, fact of the matters is that the picture tube was damaged during repair of the T.V. by the mechanic of the respondent. The act of negligence while repairing T.V. was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. However, taking overall view of the matter, we deem that compensation of Rs. 2,000/ - towards damage to the T.V. set would meet the ends of justice.