SURE MARKETING SERVICES Vs. LEO DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEO D'Soqza, respondent, had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Goa alleging that he had bought a Sears Elcot Television from M/s. Sure Marketing Services, petitioner herein. Since the date of purchase there were minor problems with the TV set and after two years use it stopped functioning. He was told that a part called CTV EHT 5002 required replacement. The respondent wrote to the manufacturers of the said TV set. Who were in Bombay � and after receiving quotation, got the said part on payment of Rs. 500/-. Alongwith the part, he also received a letter, addressed to the service Engineer of the petitioner, containing instructions for fitting it. The petitioner had received a copy of that letter. When the respondent contacted the petitioner, he was told that Service Engineer would come to his house and fix the part for which he would have to pay Rs. 75/- as service charges. The Engineer went to the respondent's house and took away the TV set to his workshop with a promises that it would be returned next day after repairs. The respondent waited for 7 days and when he did not receive the set back, he contacted the petitioner. He was told that the picture tube had burnt out and he would have to pay Rs. 6,000/-. The respondent complained that he had been cheated by the petitioner as he had procured the part from Bombay. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be directed to remove the defect and restore the TV set to him with a Warranty Certificate.

(2.) PETITIONER contested the complaint. According to them, the TV set had been purchased by the respondent in October, 1985 and at the time of repairs it was out of the warranty period. During the warranty period of one year, there was only one complaint which was remedied. It was in fact a fault in the antenna and its direction was changed. After the TV set had stopped working, the respondent had shown his set to some amateur mechanic and it was he who had informed him, that EHT part was defective. The respondent had approached them for the EHT part, but they told him that they were authorised to stock the spare parts for their own requirements and not for sale. The respondent .procured an Indian Equivalent part from Bombay and got it fixed through some technician and when the TV set did not work, he approached them (i.e. petitioner) and asked them to collect TV set from his house. They sent the technician who noticed that the EHT part had been soldered by some body and then removed. Their technician fixed the EHT part after bringing the TV set to the workshop. Only after fixing the said part, when the circuit was complete, it was noticed that the picture tube was defective. The petitioner expressed his readiness to repair the TV set provided the complainant supplied the picture tube or paid its price.

(3.) THE present petitioner appealed to the State Commissioner and contended that the warranty was only for a period of one year. However, the State Commission, without any discussions remarked: