Haryana

StateCommission

A/49/2020

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJRANG KUMAR JINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRANT SHARMA

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.49 of 2020

Date of Institution:20.01.2020

Date of decision:02.03.2020

 

 

1.      Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-18, Mohan Cooperatives, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, Delhi 110044.

 

2.      Maya Sales (Sony Authorized Dealer) through its authorized signatory Address: 36, Shop No.5, Flamingo Market, Hissar (Haryana)

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

Bajrang Kumar Jindal Address: House No.1361, Arya Nagar, Hissar (Haryana) Pin Code: 125011.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vikrant Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                  

                                      O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and directed the OPs to replace the LED/T.V. in question to the complainant with a new piece of the same price without charging any amount. In case the product in question cannot be replaced in that eventuality the OPs were directed for making a payment of Rs.73,100/- (Ex.C-1) as original cost of the product in question to the complainant.  The OPs were further burdened with compensation/cost of litigation which we quantify at Rs.5000/- payable to the complainant.  This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days, from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OPs will have to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the above said amount for the default period.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that he (complainant) purchased an LED/TV make Sony Bravia Jio FI TV manufactured by (opposite party ) O.P. No.2 from O.P.No.1  vide bill dated 01.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.73,100/-.  After purchase of the said TV/LED, he noticed that the said LED/TV was not working properly and its functions were not proper and same was having white dots on the whole screen and the picture quality of the said TV used to hang automatically.  The complaint was lodged with O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 respectively. The staff of O.P.No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and after examining the defects, the panel of the TV/LED was replaced and it was further assured that LED/TV will not create any problem.   After about 15 days, the same problem again crept in the LED. He contacted the OPs and requested to change the defective TV with a new one, but O.Ps. did not replace the LED or the refund the price of LED.  The LED in question was having a manufacturing defect.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      Notice being issued, opposite parties contested the complaint.  In the reply, complainant visited the service centre of OP No.2 on 14.02.2018 and the issue was duly resolved by carrying out replacement of display panel.  Nothing was charged from the complainant.  The complainant again visited the service centre on 09.04.2018 raising an issue with the said T.V.  The complainant brought TV in a damaged condition with the display panel was also damaged.  The damage of the TV was external in nature and same was due to the negligence on the part of the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.  Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint, accruing cause of action, concealment of true facts, locus standi, estoppels etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint. 

4.      An application for condonation of delay has also been filed alongwith the appeal.

5.      There was a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal.  Appellants have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 100 days wherein,  it is alleged that  order dated 06.09.2019 was received by the O.Ps. on 20.09.2019 and after approval from the other concerned departments, the legal team of the O.Ps. and empanelled lawyer(s) prepared the appeal.  Due to festive season during the month of October 2019 the concerned departments of the company were busy in sales and marketing since its peak season in the entire year.   Due to the above mentioned reasons, there was a delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal.  The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

6.      Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

7.      It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that order dated 06.09.2019 was received by the O.Ps. on 20.09.2019 and after approval from the other concerned departments, the legal team of the O.Ps. and empanelled lawyer(s) prepared the appeal.  It is further contended that due to festive season during the month of October 2019 the concerned departments of the company were busy in sales and marketing since its peak season in the entire year.   Thereafter appeal is being filed without any further delay. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal is not intentional and may be condoned.

8.      However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every delay should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand. No reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay of 100 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

9.      Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

 

10.       Even on merits, this Commission do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum, Hisar.    As per the expert report, the learned District Forum rightly directed the O.Ps to replace the LED/T.V. in question to the complainant with a new piece of the same price without charging any amount as the panel of the LED in question was not working.

11.       Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the complaint under appeal is without merits.  In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 100 days in filing the appeal is dismissed. We also do not find any illegality or fault in the finding given by the learned District Forum on merits. Appellants seems to have adopted a casual approach in filing the present appeal. The present appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed in limine.

12.                 The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

02nd March, 2020      Manjula                                 Harnam Singh Thakur                                                         Member                                 Judicial Member                            

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)