MADHUSUDAN MISHRA Vs. MOHESH DHOLKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint filed by the appellant having been dismissed, he has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the television set with a new one or to rectify the defects of the old one. His case is that he purchased a colour Onida television set on payment of Rs. 12,700 from the respondent. It started giving trouble soon after it was used. Although a mechanic came, he could not rectify the defects. He took the television set to the shop of the respondent assuring that it would be put into order. Despite such assurance neither the T.V. set was returned nor was replaced by a new one.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that defects pointed out by the appellant with regard to the functioning of the TV set were repaired and necessary parts were replaced. By letter dated 18.2.1997 the appellant was informed that the TV set had been duly repaired and had been lying with the dealer and he was requested to take the same back. The appellant contended that the said letter did not reach him and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to go to the dealer and receive back the TV set. We are not inclined to accept the said plea. The appellant is the owner of the T.V. set. His anxiety would have been to verify from the dealer if repair work had been undertaken. He remained silent for pretty long time for the reaons best known to him and thereafter filed the complaint. In the premises stated above, it cannot be said that the respondent was guilty of deficiency in service.