ONIDA SAKA LTD Vs. DEBABRATA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He appellant has filed the instant appeal assailing the. judgment and order dated 10.6.93 passed by the learned Calcutta District Forum in C. D. F. Case No.887/92.

(2.) It appears to us that the colour Television in question was purchased in the year 1990 although the specific date has nowhere been disclosed. It also appears that the disputed television was placed with the appellant for servicing and repairing purpose for which the respondent paid Rs.5,000/- towards service charges and cost of the parts. The said television after repair was re-delivered and the respondent received disputed television in good condition. Thereafter the complainant/respondent again placed on 28.9.92 the television for necessary repairs in the service centre of the appellant. When it was found that the picture tube of the television was damaged as alleged by the appellant. On receipt of the said disputed television by the appellant, it submitted an estimate of Rs.9,774/- on 22.11.91 but the complainant/respondent refused to pay the same. It was contended by the appellant as the picture tube was not manufactured by it, the question of replacement of the picture tube did not arise but the appellant undertook to remove the defects of the television to maintain their business relationship and reputation. The appellant by their later dated 20.4.93 addressed to the respondent as well as to the Calcutta District Forum informed that the television set has duly been repaired and the picture tube was also replaced and requested the complainant/respondent for inspection and to arrange payment before taking delivery of the television set. It was alleged by the complainant that during the repair, the picture tube had been seriously damaged and also the appellant could not cure the defects of the television set and it delayed to deliver the same causing thereby the harassment and loss to the complainant/ respondent for which he filed the complaint before the Calcutta District Forum for replacement of the disputed television with the new one and to quash the bill dated 22.11.91 for Rs.9,774/- and also sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and damage Rs.10,000/-. JUDGMENT

(3.) The Ld. C. D. F. by its order dated 10.6.93 directed the opposite party/appellant to return the television to the complainant/respondent after proper repairing free of cost within 7 days from the receipt of this order failing which penal action to be followed. We also observe that this was the case of repairing of the television which had been purchased from the appellant. The television became out of order for the second time just after first servicing and repairing and delivery to the complainant/respondent. It is also the fact that the picture tube was severely damaged while it was in the custody of the opposite party/appellant for repairing purpose.