BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1350/2008 against C.C. 61/2008, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
Proprietor of Pavan Appliances
(Digital Showroom)
Madeena Complex
Shop No. 20,21,22,25 & 26
Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1) Boda Kavitha, D/o. B. Ramachander
Age: 25 years, Lecturer
R/o. 265, Block No. 13,
Police Headquarter,
Karimnagar Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) General Manager
Ondia House, G-1
MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road
Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Srinivasa Srikanth
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. T.L.K. Sharma (R1)
M/s. Ashish Kale (R2)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the dealer Op1 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 16,000/- together with compensation and costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she has purchased Onida Colour T.V. on 5.2.2008 from the appellant (R1) under cash bill with customer warranty. However, when she put on the T.V. she found that some lines were appearing on the T.V. without any picture. She reported the fact to the appellant on which a service engineer was deputed to her house. He informed that there was defect in the picture tube. Thereupon she returned the T.V. on 3.5.2008 requesting him to replace the T.V. with a new one or pay the
cost of the T.V along with charges spent by her. In fact she had availed loan from Sriram City Union Finance Ltd., Karimnager, and spent Rs. 880/- towards documentation, Rs. 300/- towards transportation charges. Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer. Both of them are responsible and liable for replacement of T.V. She could not enjoy the T.V. along with her family members and therefore claimed the value of the T.V. , expenses, compensation and costs in all Rs. 18,680/-.
3) Appellant/OP1 resisted the case. While admitting purchase of T.V. from it on 5.2.2008 it denied that the T.V. did not function properly. It denied that on their complaint a service engineer was deputed who inspected and found that there was defect in the picture tube. She never complained. She never returned the T.V. for replacement or exchange. There was an authorised service centre appointed by opposite party No. 2 for the purpose of repairs. She could have approached the authorised service centre. There was no proof that it had sent a service boy to get the T.V. repaired. The authorised service centre is a necessary party, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) Opposite Party No. 2 did not choose to contest the matter.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence besides that of Mr. Pendota Prakash and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its partner and did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant had purchased a T.V. from the appellant covered by warranty under Ex. A7 and she informed the problem through A2 & A5 notices either to replace the T.V. with a new one or refund the amount, however they did not do so. Therefore it directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 16,000/- together with compensation and costs.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant/Op1 preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. Even if there was manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant, it was Op2 that was liable. It was no way responsible for repairs or service. The repairs would be done by authorised service centre. The order was passed solely based on the pleadings and therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed by dismissing the complaint.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased Onida colour T.V. from the appellant vide Ex. A1 cash-credit memo. It is covered by warranty vide Ex. A7 issued by the very appellant. There was no mention in Ex. A7 that in case of any defect or trouble it had to be taken to an authorised service centre. Though a condition was stipulated in Ex. A1 that the articles are guaranteed by the concerned company only and they were not responsible for any after sales service, return or exchange is not permissible under any circumstances. When the warranty card was issued by the appellant the said condition had no relevance. Apart from it the terms and conditions of warranty were not appended though it was made a mention in Ex. A7. Importantly there is no stipulation that in case of trouble it should be taken to an authorised service centre and even its address was not given. If the articles that were purchased by any of the customers were defective they were liable to replace or pay the cost of the article. It is in between the dealer and the manufacturer to settle their claims in case they were directed to pay the amount. When the complainant had purchased a T.V. from the authorised dealer it is for the dealer to satisfy that the T.V. functions well in all respects and in case of any defect, it is who was answerable. The complainant cannot be made to go to the manufacturer, when the complainant was not aware whether it was a manufacturing defect or whatever defect that has come to the fore. Though the appellant except selling the T.V. did not admit any of these facts, the complainant not only alleged in her notice at the earliest in Ex. A2 that she has returned the T.V. in order to get it repaired or exchange it with a new T.V. It was sent through Professional Courier which was received by R1 under Ex. A4, daily delivery statement issued by courier. When the complainant has filed Ex. A4 it is for the appellant to show that it did not receive the notice or that the facts mentioned therein were not true. It kept quiet. It did not issue any notice to the courier even after filing of the complaint. Despite Ex. A4 was filed evidencing that she had lodged protest with the appellant, it could not show that it did not receive it. If really the appellant did not receive such a protest letter from the complainant, and on filing proof under Ex. A3 & A4, the appellant ought to have protested with Professional Courier for taking signature showing delivery of said letter Ex. A2. The complainant could prove that she had lodged protest which was acknowledged by the appellant. The appellant in turn did not take any action. There is no proof that the complainant was informed that whenever there was trouble in the article she should take it to the authorised service centre. In fact there is no proof that such service centre is existing.
10) Learned counsel for the appellant relying a decision in Sabeena Cycle Emporium Vs. Thajes Ravi reported in I (1992) CPJ 97 contended that in case of any manufacturing defect it was the manufacturer that was liable and it was not dealer. However, we may state that the appellant could not show that it was a manufacturing defect. Even otherwise it is for the appellant who sold the T.V. He had to inspect in order to find out whether it was a manufacturing defect or defect, while selling the T.V. Appellant has given warranty card taking up the responsibility for whatever defect the T.V. had. The complainant was justified in seeking the amount from the appellant. She cannot be made to prove that there was manufacturing defect. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record fixed the joint and several liability against the opposite parties pertaining to the complaint which we feel justified in the circumstances. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 26. 11. 2010.
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
