M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) Brief facts, leading to this appeal: The complainant had purchased a BPL colour TV, 21" on 31.5.1996, from 3rd opposite party, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, for a sum of Rs.16000/-, which failed to perform properly, resulting frequent complaint to the opposite parties, rectification, finally replacing the defective set, with a new set on 30.1.1997. The replaced TV set also did not properly functioned, and had collapsed totally on 28.10.1997, for which a complaint was lodged with 2nd opposite party. The repair was rectified, on payment of charges. Because of the repeated problems, frequent repair, and sale of inferior quality of TV, the complainant was put to untold sufferings, and therefore he has issued a lawyer?s notice, claiming compensation, as well as refund of the amount, which was not conceded, resulting this consumer complaint, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, as well as for refund of a sum of Rs.16000/- paid, for the purchase of TV on 31.5.1996, with cost.
(3.) The opposite parties, admitting the sale of TV, as well as the replacement, resisted the case, interalia contending, that there was no negligence or deficiency of service, and the TV was functioning properly, and when some problem was reported, it was immediately attended, that since as a special case, the old TV set was replaced, which would go to show the gesture of good will, shown by the opposite parties, and therefore they are not entitled to answer the tall claim, made by the complainant, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;