LAJ ELECTRONICS Vs. BISHNU MAYA PANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.11.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.206 of 2000 Mrs. Bishnu Maya Panth V/s. Laj Electronics, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II]. The respondent Mrs. Bishnu Maya Panth w/o Shri B. K. Panth r/o Kothi No.6, Sector 4-A, Chandigarh filed a complaint case before the District Forum-II which came up for hearing before the District Forum-II. The respondent/complainant alleged, inter alia, that she purchased a second hand 21" Colour T. V. on 18.6.1988 from the appellant - M/s. Laj Electronics, S. C. F. No.34, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh for a sum of Rs.7,500/- against a duly executed receipt issued to the complainant/respondent. The aforesaid second hand Colour T. V. set did not function properly and gave occasional troubles to the respondent/complainant who brought up this matter to the notice of the appellant - M/s. Laj Electronics and asked the appellant to replace the second hand T. V. with a new T. V. and to adjust a sum of Rs.7,500/- already paid to the appellant for purchasing the second hand T. V. The said offer of the complainant was accepted by the appellant who agreed to replace the second hand T. V. with a new Akai Model 14" Colour T. V. and asked the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.1,000/- for the services in repairing the second hand T. V. which were given to the appellant on 10.9.1998. It was averred that the appellant had sold the new Akai 14" T. V. to the respondent for a sum of Rs.10,500/-. The complainant was, however, not satisfied with the new T. V. set as its speaker was found to be defective and the new T. V. set was also not functioning properly. The defects in the new T. V. set were also brought to the notice of the opposite party/appellant who failed to repair the same and thereafter, the same was got repaired after a complaint had been sent to the Company manufacturing the T. V. set. The complainant learnt on 17.9.1998 that the appellant/opposite party had charged excess amount for the new T. V. set as the prevailing market rate of the Akai 14" Colour T. V. was only Rs.8,000/-. Thus a sum of Rs.2,500/- was charged in excess and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was charged for repairing a second hand T. V. On these averments, the complaint was filed seeking the refund of excess amount of Rs.3,500/- with interest @ 18% amounting to Rs.786/-. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was claimed as damages caused and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was claimed as costs of legal notice. A total sum of Rs.7,286/- was claimed from the opposite party/appellant.

(2.) Since the opposite party - M/s. Laj Electronics did not appear in response to the issuance of the notice of the complaint case, the District Forum-II drew a presumption in favour of service of the notice which was not received back undelivered and proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party/appellant. Ex-parte evidence was led by the respondent/complainant. The complaint was decided ex-parte vide order dated 6.11.2000. The opposite party was directed to refund an excess amount of Rs.2,500/- together with costs of Rs.550/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint i. e.17.4.2000 till refund. A copy of this order was communicated to the opposite party M/s. Laj Electronics who has filed this appeal. Notice of appeal was issued to the complainant/respondent who put in appearance through Mr. J. N. Narang, Advocate. The record of the complaint case was summoned.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record of the complaint case and have also gone through the order under appeal.