Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member:
1. The present appeal is directed against order of District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi, dated 19.6.2003 passed in Complaint case No. 539/2003 entitled Sh. S.K. Poddar v. M/s. Indian Television Manufacturing Co.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant had filed a Complaint No. 257/2002 before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act averring therein that the appellant had purchased a TV from the respondent which was defective since the day of purchase and despite numerous repairs during the period of warranty was lying non-functional. The said complaint was decided by the learned District Forum vide order dated 27.5.2002 whereby the learned District Forum had directed the respondent to replace the appellants TV, as well as issue a fresh warranty valid for 1 year effective from 27.5.2002 to 26.5.2003. Thereafter the appellant had again filed a fresh complaint bearing No. 539/2003 in respect of the replaced TV with the grievance that the said TV had also started troubling since the first week of July, 2002 and had been repaired almost 12 times till January, 2003 by the mechanics of the respondent Company. The said complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 19.6.2003.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant has approached this Commission by filing the instant appeal.
4. We have heard the appellant in person at length on the question of the admission of the present appeal and have also carefully by going through the documents/material placed on record. It has been observed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order that on the basis of the material on record it is apparent that the appellant had approached the District Forum a second time merely as a device to get the warranty extended or get the price refunded, especially in view of the fact that the appellant had approached the District Forum a second time, just two weeks prior to the expiry of the second warranty period.
5. During the course of arguments we had put a specific query to the appellant regarding the nature of defects and proof thereof. However, the appellant has failed to give any satisfactory reply and has also failed to place on record any document to show that the TV being the subject matter of the complaint was also defective and was not working properly. Had the TV in question been repaired for 12 times as alleged by the appellant there would have been receipts/record in respect of the repairs carried out therein. In the absence of any material on record we are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that the TV in question was defective and that the same required to be replaced or its price refunded.
6. As such the present appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is dimissed in limine with no order as to cost.
Appeal dismissed.