LAWS(NCD)-1990-11-67

KAILASH KUMARI Vs. PROP SHANKAR AND CO

Decided On November 07, 1990
KAILASH KUMARI Appellant
V/S
PROP. SHANKAR AND CO. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner purchased a colour T.V. Set. on June, 26,1986 from the respondent. The said T.V. Set was found to be defective in certain vital respects and since repeated representations made by the petitioner to the respondent for rectifying those defects did not yield any result, the respondent filed a complaint - Petition before the District Forum, Kota seeking replacement of the defective set by a new T.V. set of the same model which is free from any defect. The petitioner also claimed recovery of Rs. 2,500/- by way of compensation for the inconvenience etc. caused to her. The District Forum after a detailed discussion of the evidence produced before it found that the allegations in the complaint petition were well founded and accordingly allowed the petitioner's prayer for replacement of the T.V. set with a new set of the same model and also allowed compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner.

(2.) The matter having been carried in appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan by aggrieved dealer (Opposite Party before the District Forum), the State Commission held that the District Forum was justified in issuing the direction for replacement of the T.V. set by a new set of the same model. However, with respect to the award of compensation made by the District Forum, the State Commission took the view that the question of quantification of compensation had not been approached by the District Forum from the correct perspective. Expressing the opinion that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was manifestly excessive, the State Commission held that it was reasonable and fair to fix the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs. 500/- only. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was modified by the State Commission by reducing the compensation payable to the petitioner from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 500/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order passed by the State Commission the petitioner has come up before us with this revision petition.