BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A.,LL.B.,President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 26th day of May 2008
C.C. No.105/07
Between:
Yaswantha Kumar, S/o. S. Urukundu, Minor , on behalf of him, Represented by his father, as natural Guardian S.Urukundu,
H.No.78/3/17, Vittal Nagar, Near Deva Nagar, Kurnool
…Complainant
Versus
- Authorised Dealer for Bhargava Enterprises,
Shop No.3, New Municipal Complex, Near Control Room, Kurnool.
2. Authorised Owner for Sansui Main Service Centre,
Ground Floor, Marol Bhuvan, Marol Co-Op, Industrial Area, M.V.Road, Andheri (E),Mumbai - 400 059. …Opposite parties
…
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Krishna, Advocate, for complainant and Sri. K. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.105/07
1. This case of the minor complainant through his guardian father is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act against Opposite parties 1 & 2 (i.e dealer and manufacturer) seeking an award on the opposite party for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of services and of such other reliefs which are fit and proper in the circumstance of the case alleging the sale of a Sansui Colour Televison bearing No.860905010208403903 on 3-11-2005 for an amount of Rs.8,800/- by opposite party No.1 under a cash bill and the said T.V not giving good performance and the said has not been rectified by opposite party No.1 and the latter has not responded even to the legal notices caused on 4-10-2006 to 15-3-2007.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.2 remained exparte by his abstention to the case proceedings, the opposite party No.1 contested the case filling written version denying its liability and seeking dismissal of the case.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has relied upon its sworn affidavit and documentary record Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 in reiteration of its case , the opposite party No.1 filed his sworn affidavit in support of its contention.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any liability of the opposite parties for the claim made in the complaint.
5. The Ex.A1 is cash bill dated 3-11-2005 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. It envisages the sale of a colour T.V of Sansui make described therein for Rs.8,800/-. The opposite party No.1 as admits the sale and there under to the complainant , the Ex.A1 remains proved as to the purchase of the said colour T.V by the complainant.
6. The Ex.A2 is warranty card for the products sold under Ex.A1. Neither the said warranty card nor its terms and conditions being denial by the opposite party there appears any doubt as to its relevancy to the case.
7. The terms and conditions of warranty covers, for a period of 3 years from the date of purchase, the set from any manufacturing defects in material and its workmanship. It supposes to contact, as to any complaints as to the set purchased, its nearest Sansui Servicing Centre and requires the purchaser for furnishing all relevant particulars of the purchaser and the T.V set purchased by him in the servicing station copy printed on the business reply card addressed to its servicing centre by posting the said business reply card within 10 days from the date of purchase. But as the Ex.A2 is still holding with it the said business reply card to be sent to servicing centre , it appears that the complainant has not taken any botheration of sending said business reply with necessary particulars to the contemplated servicing centre and thereby any knowledge of said purchase of said set by the complainant appears even to servicing centre of opposite party No.2. Nor the complainant appears to have complied of his complaint as to the purchase set to the said servicing centre mentioned in Ex.A2 warranty card except merely taking to the attention of opposite party No.1 – dealer and seller of T.V. Set – on which the latter’s servicing agent said to have attended the defect for rectification.
8. The terms and condition No.5 of Ex.A2 says that its liability ceases under said warranty if the set is repaired by any agency not authorized by the company. No material is placed by the complainants side that either the opposite party No.1 or its so called servicing agent were authorized by the said T.V. Company or opposite party No.2 to attend and rectified the defects complained in the sold T.V Sets . Hence for un authorized acts of taking the T.V set to opposite party No.1 and getting it repaired by the alleged servicing agent of opposite party No.1 being violative of terms and conditions of Ex.A2 does not create any valid liability on the opposite party No.2 under said Ex.A2 towards the defects if any in the set purchased by the complainant under Ex.A1. None of the terms and conditions of Ex.A2 costs any liability or responsibility of the dealer either for its rectification or replacement, there appears any liability of the opposite party No.1 under Ex.A2 under which the complainant is supposed to take any benefit if any defective set was sold.
9. Further the complainant has not taken any pains to establish as to the defects in said T.V either by taking its performance during the enquiry of this case nor deposited the defective T.V set for taking any recourse contemplated under section 13 (1) (C) of C.P. Act for ascertaining the nature of defect with which said T.V set is suffering and to hold the said is none else than a manufacturing defect on account of any substandard material or defective workmanship availed in manufacture of said T.V set .
10. As the liability for rectification of defects or replacement or refund of the cost of the product shall be available only in the contingency of manufacturing defects or deficiency in service and not on account of any others, otherwise, than that and when the complainant as not established as to the real defect , the complainant remaining failed in establishing the liability of the opposite parties for his claim.
11. There being any valid liability of the opposite parties under the circumstances stated above , the Ex.A2 to A5 (mere notices caused to the opposite party No.1) leaves any much adverse bearing on the case and so also any relevancy of I (2008) CPJ 326 (NC) , I (2008) CPJ 269 (NC) decisions cited by the learned counsel for the complainant.
12. consequently, there being any merit and force in the claim of the complainant and there by any liability of opposite parties for it , the complainants case is dismissed and in circumstances each party bear their costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of May 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties :
-Nil- - Nil-
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Cash bill dated 3-11-05 for Rs.8,800/-.
Ex.A2. Customer Warranty Card in favour of Complainant.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice 4-10-2006.
Ex.A4. Refused Cover along with acknowledgement.
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal notice dated 15-3-2007
along with acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. S. Krishna, Advocate, for complainant.
2. Sri. K. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, for opposite party No.1
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
