VAMALINGAM Vs. NDS COMPUTERS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the complainant in C. D. No.1780/93, District Forum, Hyderabad is that he purchased a TV on 29.6.90 for consideration of Rs.6,650/- with warranty period of one year. According to the complainant, the TV worked satisfactorily for about 10 or 11 months and thereafter it started giving trouble. The complainant lodged a complaint with the dealer and the technician of the opposite party visited his residence. It is the further case of the complainant that on 30.11.91 he took the T. V. to the service centre of the opposite party for repairs for which the opposite party issued a job card and delivered it back after repairs. But even thereafter the performance was not satisfactory. The complainant, therefore, once again on 31.1.92 gave the TV at the service centre of the opposite party and the opposite party repaired the same under the job card No.1585 dated 29.4.92 as evidenced by Ex. A 7. It is the case of the complainant that even thereafter, the TV is giving trouble in spite of it being repaired once again as evidenced by Ex. A 8. He, therefore, filed a complaint either for replacement of the TV with a new one or for refund of the price paid by him.

(2.) The opposite party was set ex-parte.

(3.) The District Forum found that even according to the complainant for about 11 months of the purchase there was no repair to the TV and it worked satisfactorily. It was only on 30.11.91, that is, after expiry of the warranty period, he took the TV to the service centre for repairs and as could be seen from Ex. A6, A 7 and A8 the opposite party repaired the TV and gave it back to the complainant. The District Forum also found that since almost during the entire warranty period there was no complaint of any manufacturing defect by the complainant, and if any repairs effected after the warranty, the opposite party is entitled to charge for the same. It further found that IC alone had become defective during the warranty period and the opposite party replaced the IC. It, therefore, cannot be said that any manufacturing defect in the TV was made out by the complainant. It, therefore, directed the opposite party to repair the said TV after collecting charges from the complainant for the repairs including cost of the parts replaced and to deliver the same to the complainant.