S.P.BATRA vs ARYAN ELECTRONIC And ELECTRICALS

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 13.11.91 by which the complaint was dismissed.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a Vedio-head Vom 0267 for Rs. 990/- vide cash memo No. 4108 dated 26.2.91 from the respondent. It is alleged that he started operating the Video-head at his residence but it was found defective. Later he got it examined from a mechanic and he found that one of its circuits was not in working order. He, thereafter, approached the respondent for replacement of the head or refunding the amount Rs. 990/- but the respondent did not acceede to his request. It is pleaded by the respondent in the written statement that the Video-head had been imported by M/s. Videotech Pvt. Ltd., Solan and he had-purchased that from the-said company. He has made it clear at the time of selling the head to the complainant that he did not give any guarantee about its working. This was also specifically written on the cash memo. It is further pleaded that the head was in working condition when it was given to the complainant, and it was possible that it might have developed the fault on account of mishandling by the complainant or the mechanic.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal against the order of the District Forum to the State Commission.

IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Video-head was not found in working condition by the complainant at his residence and therefore, the respondent was liable to replace the same or refund its price to the complainant. According to him the action of the respondent in not doing so amounts to unfair trade practice. We have duly considered the arguments but do not find any substance therein. The Video-head was an imported item and had been sold with a specific condition that there was no guarantee regarding functioning of the part and that neither it could be replaced nor returned. The head was in working condition when it was delivered to the appellant. It is a very delicate instrument and can develop a defect if it is mis-handled. It is possible that it developed the defect after it had been sold to the complainant. We repeatedly asked the learned Counsel for the appellant to show us the provision of law under which, if any thing is sold with the condition that it is neither replaceable nor returnable that becomes an unfair trade practice, but he was unable to show that to us. It has not been proved that the respondent made any false representation to the complainant regarding the quality of the head. In view of the nature of the instrument and the conditions mentioned in the cash memo the complainant cannot say that the respondent indulged in unfair trade practice, when he sold Video-head to him.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. However, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.