KHEM RAJ SHARMA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of this case.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent sold a New National Panasonic Colour TV to the appellant for Rs. 12,400 vide bill dated 9.11.2002. As per the appellant it was found to be defective and had to be taken to the respondent. His mechanic informed the appellant that set was defective and old one and it was due to this reason that it was not functioning properly.

(3.) AS already observed so far sale is concerned, it is not in dispute. The case of the respondent is that the complaint is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties i.e. the manufacturer of the Television in question, and the respondent was estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct because he has concealed the material facts. Regarding guarantee, it is admitted that one years guarantee is given by the manufacturer and not by the respondent. Further case of the respondent is that the set in question was brought to his shop in the month of October, 2003. It was non -functional and Mechanic after examination found that it was due to fuse which was on account of fluctuation of electricity supply. As such, there was no manufacturing defect. According to the respondent, he was ready and willing to provide the service in case the appellant so desired. After having used the television, complaint has been filed. As such, there is no deficiency of service on his part. To the contrary, it is the respondent who was being harassed. Respondent has filed his own affidavit in support of his defence.