MANOJ ELECTRONICS LTD vs U.C. BANSAL

THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the order of the District Forum dated 28th April, 1992.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are, that the complainant purchased one T.V. set manufactured by opposite party No. 2, carrying a warranty for one year from M/s. Naresh Electronics, a firm allegedly owned by M/s. Manoj Electronics, appellant, on 5.8.90 for a sum of Rs. 10,800/-. The set did not give perfect service and was sent twice for repairs. It is alleged that O.P. No. 1 could not repair the same. complainant filed a complaint praying that respondents be directed to replace the TV set or refund the entire amount. The complaint was contested by the O.P. No. 1 pleading that they had no concern with Naresh Electronics, which was a separate firm. However, they admitted that the set was repaired by them, during the warranty period.

The learned District Forum held that Shri Jwala Prasad was the proprietor of M/s Manoj Electronics and that his son is the proprietor of Naresh Electronics and that Jwala Prasad was Karta of the family. That the TV set was repaired by M/s. Manoj Electronics and they had written a letter to O.P. No. 2 asking them to replace the TV set. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances it directed O.P. No. 1 - appellant to refund Rs. 10,300/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 5.8.90 till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainant. O.P. No. 1 has come in appeal against the said order.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is a limited concern and is not the proprietor of M/s. Naresh Electronics and that the findings of the learned District Forum to the contrary are not correct. We have duly considered the arguments but regret our inability to accept the same. The learned District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence came to the conclusion that Naresh Electronics was owned by the opposite party. We find no reason to differ with that finding. It is noteworthy that Manoj Electronics in 1990 was not a limited concern which fact is clear from the general power of attorney dated 25.11.91 filed on behalf of the respondent. It was executed by Shri J.P. Gupta Prop. Manoj Electronic 3739, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The address of Manoj Elec. Ltd. given on the letter dated 21.5.91 which was written by them to M/s. Hotline, New Delhi for changing the set is the same. It appears that the appellant became a limited concern after 1991 but the set was purchased by the complainant in 1990. Taking into consideration the above fact and the facts given by the District Forum in its order we reject the submission of the learned Counsel.

FACED with this situation the learned Counsel argued that the warranty as given by the seller and manufacturer. Therefore the opposite party No. 2 should also be held liable for payment of the decretal amount. We have considered the argument and find force in it. It is common knowledge that the warranty is given by the manufacturer as well as by the dealer. The appellant wrote to the manufacturer for changing the TV set but they did not do so. The manufacturer is equally liable for repair/replacement of the TV set within the warranty period, if it is not working properly. In the circumstances opposite party No. 2 is equally liable to refund the amount as ordered by the District Forum. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal, modify the order of the District Forum and direct both the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 10,800/- to the complainant along with interest @15% p.a. from 5.8.90 till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation before the District Forum, to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order failing which action u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act would be taken against them. No order as to costs of the appeal. Appeal partly allowed.