AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant.
Briefly put the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had obtained a V.C.R. from the respondent on replacement basis which according to him did not work well and when after repeated requests and correspondence, the respondent did not carry out the repair within the warranty period, he approached the District Forum who after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant before the State Commission was also dismissed, hence the revision petition.
It was argued by the petitioner that he is an educated unemployed and had taken a loan for purchase of V.C.R. and was using it for making his livelihood from new V.C.R. supplied by the respondent which has not been working well and he only wants it to be repaired by the respondent as it was within the warranty period. His not doing so is deficiency in service. Respondent should be directed to carry out the repairs and order of the lower Fora should be set aside.
We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments and found that this is a second round of litigation. Petitioner had purchased a VCR Optronica from the respondent in 1991. When it did not work well he moved the District Forum who after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and ordered replacement of VCR by a new one of BPL brand, as had been originally demanded by the petitioner. On appeal by the respondent, this order was set aside, against which the petitioner had filed a revision petition which was allowed as a result of which the petitioner was given a new VCR BPL make.
It now transpires that the new VCR also started giving trouble for which the petitioner got into long correspondence, but to no effect. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the District Forum once again who after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner has been using VCR contrary to the terms of warranty. Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on the same ground. From perusal of record and order of the two lower Fora, we find that the warranty envisaged use of VCR for domestic use, but it appeal that VCR was being used for letting out on hire and was used when he was not present,which is a clear violation of the terms of warranty. On points of fact, both the lower Fora dismissed the complaint/appeal. No point of law has been raised before us to invoke our revisional jurisdiction. We find no grounds to interfere with the orders of the State Commission. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.