Mr. Jusice R.C. Mankad, President—This appeal by Videocon International Limited (Company for short) is directed against the judgment and order dated February 16,1994 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad (District Forum for short) in Complaint No. 122 of 1993 by which the Company is directed to replace the T.V. set and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for inconvenience and hardship and additional compensation of Rs. 500/- to respondent No. 1 (respondent for short)

2. Facts leading to this appeal briefly stated are as follows :

Respondent No. 1 is original complainant who had purchased T.V. set known as “Picture-in-Picture” for Rs. 21,190/- on May 26,1992. It is alleged that sometime after the T.V. set was purchased, it was not working properly and there was overlaping of sound or mixing of two sounds or voices of two pictures. That respondent, therefore, complained to the Company and the Company sent its technician to repair the T.V. set. According to the respondent although the T.V. set was repaired more than once by the Company’s technician, it could not be put in order on account of manufacturing defect. The respondent had to undergo hardship and inconvenience. The Company, however, ultimately, refused to repair the TV set. The respondent, therefore, approached the District Forum by way of the aforesaid complaint praying for (1) refund of price of T.V. set or in the alternative for replacement of T.V. set; (2) compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for hardship and inconveniencel and (3) special compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. The Company opposed the complaint and denied the allegations made by the complainant. It was contended that on receipt of complaint from the respondent, the T.V. set was repaired and respondent’s husband had certified that it was repaired satisfactorily. It is further stated that the Company’s technician was sent several times to repair the T.V. set and there was, therefore, no deficiency of service on the part of the Company. On the above grounds, the company prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The District Forum by its impugned judgment and order held to the effect that there was manufacturing defect in the T.V. set supplied to the respondent and the Company was unable to remove this defect. The Company was, therefore,, liable to replace the T.V. set. However, so far as claim for compensation was concerned, the District Forum held that the respondent was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. It, therefore, directed the Company to replace the T.V. set and pay to the respondent compensation as stated above. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Company has preferred this appeal.

5. It is clear from the evidence on record and the admissions made on behalf of the Company had sent its technician to repair the respondent’s T.V. set several times. The fact that it became necessary to repair the T.V. set several times would itself indicate that there was some manufacturing or inherent defect in the T.V. set which could not be removed. Therefore, the proper course for the Company to adopt was to replace the T.V. set by a new T.V. set. It was however urged on behalf of the Company that the Company had repaired the T.V. set whenever called upon to do so and it was not under obligation to replace any part or repair the T.V. set or to replace the T.V. set after the period of warranty was over. There was, therefore, no question of replacing the T.V. set or paying compensation as directed by the District Forum. We do not find any substance in this contention. It cannot be disputed that defect in T.V. set was noticed soon after the T.V. set was purchased by the respondent and the technicians of the Company were not able to remove this defect. It may be that the period of warranty is over but since the defect was found before the warranty period was over, the Company was under an obligation to remove the defect or to replace the T.V. set even after the expiry of t