DNYANESHWAR A BELKHODE Vs. SHRIKRUPA ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Amravati dated 30th May, 1992 passed in complaint No.61/91. In his complaint, Dnyaneshwar Belkhode alleged that the Opposite Party M/s. Shrikrupa Electronics were deficient while rendering the promised service. It has been alleged by the complainant that a T. V. set purchased by him out of loan in the year 1989 was defective. On a complaint, the said T. V. was replaced with another T. V. According to complainant, the 2nd T. V. was given to him as a stop gap arrangement. According to complainant, the 2nd T. V. also was not giving proper service and therefore, he had taken up the matter with the Opposite Party. The complainant alleged that the Opposite Party instead of giving him a new T. V. replaced it by the same T. V. of 'colour man' make and given a guarantee of 5 years. He accepted this T. V. as a stop gap arrangement on 21st March, 1990. It is the case of complainant that he was demanding 'optonica' T. V. but the Opposite Party gave him 'colour man' T. V. The complainant, therefore, filed this complaint claiming compensation. The claim was opposed by the Opposite party on the ground that the guarantee provided with the said T. V. was over. The Opposite party also opposed the complainant's claim for compensation.

(2.) We have heard Shri Juneja, Advocate for Appellant and Shri Kalantri, Advocate for respondent. According to Shri Juneja, the defects in the T. V. set were obvious. It is also contended that there was deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party inasmuch as no documents about the T. V. set were given to him and no guarantee card was given to him. The Complainant therefore, prayed for replacement and also compensation.

(3.) After hearing both the learned Advocates and after going through the impugned order, we find that the complainant has voluntarily accepted the replaced T. V. from the Opposite Party and used it. When the complainant made another complaint, another T. V. was replaced. Therefore, we find that the Act of replacement of the T. V. was with complainant's consent. The complainant has actually used the T. V. although he complained about the improper functioning. But the fact remains that the T. V. has been in use of complainant and therefore, no credence can be given to his complaints which were minor in nature. In any case, we do not find that this is a fit case, where the complainant can claim any compensation. In our view, the District Forum was correct in passing the impugned order by which the Opposite party is directed to deliver the colour T. V. to the complainant after its due repairs within a period of one month. Under these circumstances, the complainant's claim for compensation has been rejected. In our view, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no substance in this appeal for the claim of compensation by the appellant. Hence we dismiss this appeal.