B.N. Sinha, President - This appeal is directed against order dated 3.12.1993 passed by the District Forum, Arah(Bhojpur) in complaint case No. 130 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. They are being referred to hereinafter by nomenclature they had before the District Forum. --.

2. The facts of the case put-forth by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant purchased a colour TV Set, Model 'Manolith of Webel Nicco Limited, Calcutta from M/s. Swar Sangam Central at Calcutta - Opposite Party No.2 for Rs. 12,700.00 on 14.11.1988 for which a cash memo was issued to him. At the time of purchase of the TV set the complainant was assured OJ the opposite party No.2 of service• by his dealer at Arah and at Patna. Firstly the remote controller of the TV set stopped functioning and then the TV set also stopped functioning. The complainant approached the local dealer of the company, but he was informed that he is no more the dealer of the Company and was also informed that the Bihar office of the Webel Nicco Limited Company has been closed. The complainant was advised to write to the Company's Head Office at Calcutta. The complainant accordingly wrote to the Service Officer(O.P. 1) and M/s. Swar Sangam Central Calcutta. The complainant was advised in reply thereof of the Senior Service Officer(opposite party No.1) of the company to deliver the TV set to him for necessary repair. The complainant, however, learnt that the said model TV is not available as the company has stopped manufacturing and marketing of that particular model TV set and the company therefore converts that model TV set into a different one for which they are charging Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 6000/- as conversion charge. The complainant therefore filed case before the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to take back the TV set and to pay back Rs. 12,700.00, the cost of the TV set to the complainant besides Rs. 500.00 as cost incurred by the complainant in correspondence and filing the case besides other expenses which the complainant may incur.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties, but it appears that the opposite party did not appear and therefore the case was heard and decided ex-parte of the District Forum vide order dated 15.1.1993 by which the District Forum ordered the complainant to present the TV set and the remote controller to the opposite party at Calcutta and the opposite party were directed to repair them within one month from the date they are handed over to them(the opposite party) and charge reasonable service charges for the same and issue a fresh warranty in respect thereof. The District Forum further ordered that if the opposite party did not comply with the above order they would pay back Rs. 12,700.00 to the complainant besides Rs. 500.00 as carriage charges.

4. Subsequent thereto a petition was filed by the complainant on 24.6.1993 before the District Forum that the opposite party did not comply with the order and repair was not done within one month from 3.3.1993 the date on which the TV set and the remote controller had been handed over to the opposite party at Calcutta, and that by letter dated 28.5.1993 by the opposite party No. 3 the complainant has informed that the TV and remote controller had been repaired within time and to take back the TV set and the remote controller on payment of Rs. 4350.00 as their repairing cost. The complainant claimed that the proceeding u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter called the Act) may be initiated against the opposite party for not implementing the order. Notice was again sent to the opposite party with regard thereto and the opposite party sent their written version by post. Thereafter the complainant was heard and the impugned order dated 3.12.1993 was passed by the District Forum, directing the opposite parties to pay back Rs. 12,700/- the price of the TV and Rs. 500.