PRABHAKARAN NAIR N K Vs. BPL SANYO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of an order passed by the District Forum, Wynad in C. C.64/92. In Appeal No.175/92, the 1st Opp. Party is the appellant and the Appeal 180/92 the complainant is the appellant.

(2.) On 29.8.90 the complainant purchased from the 2nd Opp. Party a BPL VCP manufactured by the 1st Opp. Party for Rs.10,888/- believing the claim made by the 1st Opp. Party in various advertisements in the media that the said set has the facility of frame advance. The complainant being an Engineer was particular to have the Frame Advance Facility. In page 7 of the user's Manual issued by the 1st Opp. Party also contained the following statement. "frame Advance" press the pause/still Button during still play back. Play back picture will advance frame by frame. One pressing advances one frame. Normal play-back will resume as the play button is pr\essed. "

(3.) On taking the VCP home the complainant noticed certain defects. The frame advance facility promised was not working. Therefore he wrote to the 2nd Opp. Party on 8.9.90 with a copy to the 1st Opp. Party No.1 about the defect. On 28.10.90 again he wrote to the 1st Opp. Party about the defect. The 1st Opp. Party sent a reply on 7.11.90 stating that there is no manufacturing defect and further reiterating that the "frame Advance Facility" is provided in the set and that a demonstration will be given to the complainant. On 12.12.90, a technician of the 1st Opp. Party gave a demonstration to the complainant. Complainant alleged that he could not demonstrate the working of "frame Advance Facility". On 14.12.90 the complainant wrote to the 1st Opp. Party pointing out the failure of technician to demonstrate frame advance and requesting rectification of the defect. On 10.6.91 the Opp. Party No.1 replied that in the set, the "frame advance facility proceeds with a very low speed with noise bar continuously pushed down". The 1st Opp. Party also stated in Model No. VHP 5300, excellent frame advance was provided. The complainant again sent a letter to 1st Opp. Party No.1 on the subject, and 1st Opp. Party sent a reply reiterating the same contentions. On receipt of this, the complainant sent a registered notice on 20.2.91 to Opp. Party No.1 demanding him to set right the matter and informing him that on failure the complainant would resort to legal proceedings. The 1st Opposite Party sent a reply on 12.3.91 stating that the statement in users manual that "one pressing advances one frame" is a printing error. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of 1st Opp. Party and also false representation that the V. C. P. is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style and model and that it incorporates particular feature which in fact it does not possess and that therefore he is entitled to get compensation. He claimed a total amount of Rs.21,338/- as compensation.