S.K.M. Lodha, President -–– This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act” herein) is directed against the order dated 10.7.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complainant Case No. 453/90 by which the complaint was dismissed.

2. The complainant-appellant purchased a colour T.V. Texla, Model No. 2042 III Sr. No. 32019 on 20.2.1985 vide Cash Memo No. 22 dated 20.2.1985 from M/s Venus Electronics, Katewa Mansion. Shastri Nagar, Jaipur a dealer of Texla T.V. under the distributorship of M/s Avantika, 24, Jayanti Market, Jaipur which closed the shop long back. It is said that the T.V. was defective from the date of its purchase, inasmuch as its colour contrast was very poor and picture was not bright. This defect was reported to the dealer immediately who sent his technician 2-3 times but its performance could not improve. The dealer is said to have replied that the colour contrast; will automatically improve and it will give better and pleasant picture with the lapse of time. The complainant relied on the assurance. He approached M/s Avantika for rectification of defect in T.V. set. M/s Avantika sent its technician who failed to rectify the defect. According the complainant, the matter went on lingering. Ultimately a reply was given that M/s Avantika cannot do anything as the warranty period was over. Thereafter the complainant carried the T.V. set to the service centre of M/s Texla at Jaipur. He was told that the picture tube was defective and its only solution is the replacement by a new one. The complainant was asked to pay the cost of the colour tube to which he did not agree. Thereafter certain letters and notice were also sent. The notice was sent through the advocate on 23.8.1989. Meanwhile the complainant got reply from the firm through the advocate that picture tube can be replaced against the real cost and that other charges like replacement charges etc. shall not be realised. The grievances of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint are that the T.V. set is defective right from its purchase that the dealer, the distributor and the firm avoided the matter wilfully to pass warranty period despite requests, that a sum of Rs. 7,400/- has been blocked since 20.2.1985, that the complainant had been deprived of many useful and entertaining programmes of Doordarshan and on account of that she suffered mental tension and physical pain and that she had go to the dealer and had to pay advocates for sending notice etc. It was prayed by her that the T. V. set may be got replaced by a new one. She claimed the following amounts :

1. Expenses for notice Rs. 700/-

2. Expenses for visiting the dealer repeatedly Rs. 500/-

3. Hardship and agony because of deprivation of information from T.V. Rs. 5,000/-

4. Interest was also claimed @ 18% p.a. on the amount paid i.e. money which is blocked because of the defective T.V. w.e.f. 20.2.1985 until the replacement

3. The complaint was filed before the District Forum, Jaipur on 20.4.1990. The complainant submitted photostat copies of the letters etc. with the complaint together with the cash memo and receipts evidencing payment made. On behalf of the opposite party version of the case was submitted before the District Forum contesting the complaint. It was admitted that the T.V. set was purchased in February 1985 from the local dealer in Jaipur. It was denied that the set was defective from the very beginning, for, the first letter of the complainant which is addressed to the opposite party was of 22.8.1988. According to the opposite party the T.V. set worked satisfactorily for more than three years. It was averred that the report was lodged in August 1988 after the expiry of the warranty period. A reply was sent to the notice of the advocate stating that the picture tube has given way after working of nearly four years and since the warranty period has been expired, the opposite party is ready to repair the T.V. set but the cost of the component neede