CHANDUBHAI D CHHAG Vs. GOPALAN K P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amreli directing the appellants to pay the amount of Rs.12,300/- with 12% interest from 11.12.89 to the date of realisation, Rs.3000/- for the compensation for mental torture etc. and Rs.300/- for the cost of the complaint, holding that the appellants failed to rectify the defects in the Optonica TV purchased by the respondent No.1 Gopalan K. P. from the appellant Chandubhai D. Chhag (appellant at Appeal No.58/ 93) and produced by the appellant No.2 in Appeal No.74/93 and distributed through the appellant No.1 in the same appeal. Parties will be referred by their original position in complaint.

(2.) The complainant Gopalan K. P. purchased the Optonica TV from the opponent No.1-Chandubhai Chhag, the proprietor of Music Centre, Kodinar, as he was attracted by the advertisement about the sharp pictures and sound system in the TV. Opponent No.1 is the dealer of said TV which are produced by the opposite party No.3. The complainant purchased 20" screen Colour TV set on 11.12.89 for Rs.12,300/- from the opponent No.1-Music Centre. The amount of Rs.6000/-was immediately paid on purchase and remaining amount was paid by monthly instalments and accordingly the full price of the TV set was paid. According to the complainant the TV set worked properly for six months but after that the TV did not give clear picture and sound and many other defects were found. The complaint was made to the opponent No.1 in September 1990 but he did not pay attention immediately and was told to wait till the technician came from Ahmedabad. The complainant then complained to the Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Kodinar on 6.9.90 and they also entered into correspondence with opponent No.1 on behalf of the complainant. The technician repaired the TV on 22.9.90. The complainant again complained about defect in the TV in December 90. On 27.12.90 the technician checked the TV but could not repair it and told that the TV kit will be required to be taken to Ahmedabad. After that the technician again came as the complainant complained to Grahak Suraksha Mandal and ultimately the TV kit was taken to Ahmedabad and replaced after sometime but it did not work properly. The complainant again complained and the TV set was repaired on 5.1.91 but according to the complainant after that also it did not work properly and the defects continued.

(3.) The complainant then filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The appellant in Appeal No.58/93 (opponent No.1 in complaint-Chandubhai) appearing personally made the grievance that the District Forum has not considered several relevant facts which were produced before the Forum. He submitted that the TV set was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant several times and atleast twice the complainant had given in writing that it was repaired to his satisfaction, but that fact is not considered by the District Forum. He also urged that he had taken the Chairman and Members of the Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Kodinar and in their presence the trial was given and the working of the TV set was seen by them and they were satisfied. But that fact is also not considered by the District Forum. Ms. S. J. Shah, the learned Advocate for the appellant in Appeal No.74/93 (Opponent Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint) made the grievance that the District Forum had committed grave error in directing to pay the amount of Rs.12,300/- but did not pass any order to return the TV set. The complainant could not have been allowed to enjoy both the benefits. The other submissions by the appellants will be considered at the relevant stage.