1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on limitation as well as on merits.

2. He submitted that the Wardrobe in question was not of any reputed company and no warrantee card was issued to the complainant/respondent. Moreover the estimate is not a document of sale.

3. According to the complainant, he purchased a Wardrobe on 18.11.2011 from the O.P./appellant for Rs. 30,000/- for which the receipt – Exhibit-3 was issued with a warrantee/guarantee of one year, but just after two months the Wardrobe went out of order. On complaint one person was sent and the Wardrobe was repaired but after about a month again the Wardrobe went out of order. On complaint the appellant neither got it repaired nor replaced it. Then a legal notice was issued to which no reply was given by the appellant.

4. Appellant did not file any written statement but from the cross-examination it appears that he denied the sale of Wardrobe itself.

The complaint examined three witnesses who fully supported his case.

The learned District Forum has rightly treated Exhibit-3, the ‘Estimate’ as a document of sale with an endorsement – “with one year warrantee and one year guarantee” written and signed by the appellant. This receipt was not challenged by the appellant. It is not correct to say that only reputed companies give warrantee/guarantee and the appellant could not give warrantee/guarantee.

5. After hearing, learned counsel for the appellant and going through the brief, we find that the complainant had proved his case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

6. In the circumstances even if the delay of 28 days in filing this appeal is ignored we find no merit in this appeal.

7. We only clarify that after the appellant complies with the impugned order, the appellant may take back the Wardrobe in question from the complainant. With this clarification this appeal is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.