BHABANI SANKAR DAS Vs. AMARENDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defect in goods and deficiency is service are the grievances of the complainant.

(2.) Case of complainant is that on the promised assurance of after sales service advertised in papers and to encourage an Oriya enterpienuer, he purchased a colour T. V. set on 21.3.1985 from Surya Investment and Transport Pvt. Ltd. On payment of Rs.6,600/- towards cost of the set. He did not use the set from June, 1986 or June 1988 on account of his posting in far off places. The set was put to use from July, 1988 to January, 1990whenthere was breakdown in the set. On 25.1.1990 he handed over the set to uthorized service uthor at Cuttack where he was promised to get back the set on 1.2.1990 after repair. On approach by complainant on 1.2.1990 and repeatedly thereafter, he was intimated at the service uthor that it is unable to repair the set and striking off the date of delivery mentioned in red ink 'uncertain'. Lastly showing a letter of regret from the Chief Service Engineer, the service uthor required the complainant to take back the T. V. set unrepaired with the letter. However, complainant did not accept the request and let the T. V. set with the uthorized dealer. On 3.3.1990, complainant addressed a letter to Hon'ble Chief Justice, Orissa High Court with copy to Opposite Party. Opposite Party had no regard for the registered letter. On these assertions, complainant prays for directing repair of the T. V. set or in case of failure to replace it by a new one and to compensate for harassment to family members due to loss of entertainment since they have missed the last 12 episodes of Mahabharat and many others for a span of one year. It is also prayed to direct Opposite Party to issue a press note in all heading newspapers telling the future buyers that their sets sold cannot be repaired. Amount of loss and compensation had been assessed at Rs.1,10,000/-.

(3.) On receipt of copy of the complaint, Opposite Party state his case asserting that complainant purchased the T. V. set with one year warranty valid upto 21.3.1986. It was a completely imported T. V. set, whose kits were manufactured/supplied by M/s. For East United Electronics Ltd. , Hongkong. When complainant made a grievance of low brightness on 25.1.1990, the T. V. set was received for repair by the authorised service centre at Cuttack. At the time of investigation of the defects it was noticed that Extra high Tension Transfer Union as EHT has lost its utility as a matter of regular wear and tear and requires replacement. Prior to it on 22.11.1988 Opposite Party had made a request to the supplier at Hongkong by telex message to supply several spare parts for sales and service wherein 15 numbers of EHT were also required. On 30.11.1988 supplier reported back the spares available with price and cost and intimated that other spares are not available. Opposite Party has not been able to find any indegenous part as substitute of the said EHT and the T. V. set being an absolute model, no replacement of spare parts can be made now. This was intimated to complainant on 12.4.1990 and it was intimated that on account of long use the EHT has become defunct. It is further asserted that every purchaser of "t. V 15" was made known at the time of purchase that entire kits of the set are imported.