Delhi

StateCommission

A/140/2017

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOVIND KHATRI & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL GOYAL

22 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:22.09.2017

 

First Appeal- 140/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 13.01.2017 passed in Complainant Case No. 410/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi)

 

Sharp Business Systems India Pvt. Ltd.,

First Floor, 487/35A, Outer Ring Road,

Peeragarhi, New Delhi-110087.

Through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Rakesh Verma

…..Appellant

 

Versus

1.       Govind Khatri,

R/o H.No.126A-1 Block Gali No.4,

Amrit Vihar, Burari, Delhi-110084.

 

2.       Krishna Enterprises,

          Shop No.A-1/4, Main Road,

          25 Ft. Road, Amrit Vihar Burari,

          Delhi-110084.

.….Respondents

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

 1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) against order dated 13.1.17 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in CC No.410/2016.

 

2.          Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that respondent-1/complainant had purchased LED TV 24” SHARP on 27.12.13 from respondent-2/OP-2.  After 3 months of its purchase, the said TV stopped functioning.  Several complaints were made before the Customer Care.  Even after 15-20 days of repairing, TV stopped functioning.  Consequently respondent-1 had filed a complaint before District Forum claiming Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.

2.                Appellant/OP-2 appeared before the District Forum on 22.12.16 and filed job sheets of repair work done.  Finding that there was possibility of settlement, the case was listed before Lok Adalat on 13.1.17.  On 13.1.17, statement of respondent-1/complainant was recorded and vide separate order, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Aggrieved with the above said order, present appeal is filed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP-2 has contended that no statement was made before the District Forum for giving extended warranty of 3 years for the TV set.  It is contended that statement was made by the executive of appellant/OP-2 that TV was repaired within three years warranty.  It is stated that as per impugned order dated 13.1.17 it is recorded that three years extended warranty is given.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP-2 is heard.  The relevant orders dated 22.12.16 and 13.1.17 of District Forum are reproduced below:

                   “22.12.16

                   Present complainant in person.

                   Proxy Counsel for OP-1(Vanita).

                   Shri Rakesh Verma, Service Executive OP-2.

 

                   OP-1 filed written statement.  Copy supplied.

                   OP-2 filed repaired jobsheet.

                   The T.V. set has been repaired with 3 years warranty.

                   Complainant has not denied.

                   There is possibility for settlement.

                   Case be list on Lok Adalat held on 13.1.17.”

                  

                   “13.1.17

                   Present complainant in person.

                   Counsel for OP.

 

                   Complainant withdraws the complaint.  Statement

                   of complainant recorded.

                   Vide separate order, case is disposed as withdrawn.

                   File be consigned to record room.”

 

6. The aforesaid order was passed on the statement of respondent/complainant made in Hindi which is recorded on the margin of aforesaid order.  The respondent/complainant had made a statement that he be allowed to withdraw the complaint as he was given three years fresh warranty.  He had also stated that presently TV set is functioning Ok.
7. Perusal of order dated 22.12.16 shows that the service executive of appellant/OP-2 was present on that date.  The statement of said executive has been recorded in the aforesaid order wherein it is stated that appellant/OP-2 has filed the repaired job sheet.   The TV set has been repaired with 3 years warranty.   It is further recorded that the respondent/complainant has not denied the same.   Thereafter the matter has been disposed off on 13.1.17 in the presence of Counsel for appellant/OP.  Reading the aforesaid orders, it cannot be said that no statement was made for giving fresh warranty of three years as has been contended.  The order has been passed with the consent of parties.  The challenge to the aforesaid order has been made as an afterthought in order to wriggle out of the voluntary statement made before Ld. District Forum.  No case for interference is made out.  Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed in limine. 
8. We may also observe that about one year of extended warranty is already over.

 

 

 

  

9. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)​

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member