REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.03.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 195 of 2016.

2.     The facts of the case as per the respondent/ complainant are that the respondent had purchased one LED manufactured by the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.17,500/- from respondent no. 2 - Bakshi Electromart on 23.10.2010 and one year guarantee was given. On 10.07.2015 the LED suddenly stopped playing with a great sound while playing. Complaint of the same was made with the petitioner on the toll free number. On 11.07.2015 a mechanic from the petitioner company came and on seeing the same, informed that there was a problem with the panel, and that it will take some time to get the replacement panel. The respondent has been waiting for a very long time for the repair of the LED but no one has come to repair the same. The respondent then sent a message and that the LED can only be repaired on payment of Rs.16,500/-. This was even when the LED was within the guarantee period. Therefore, the respondent filed this complaint and prayed for awarding the price of LED or to repair the LED and prayed for compensation for mental harassment and cost of the case.

3.     The petitioner no. 1 – Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd., has contested the complaint. It has been contended that the respondent had purchased the LED from respondent no. 2 – Bakshi Electromart. On receiving the complaint on 10.07.2015, a mechanic had been sent to the respondent on 11.07.2015, who found that its panel had broken due to hitting of LED. There was no manufacturing defect in it. A small child of the respondent came in the presence of the mechanic and said that the LED has stopped functioning after being hit with a ball. Hence, it is clear that the panel of LED broke due to being hit with a ball. The mechanic had not given any guarantee of free repair of the panel. He had stated that Rs.12,000/- will be charged for installation of panel but the respondent has not made the payment of Rs.12,000/- and said that the LED was within the guarantee/ warranty period, therefore, it should be installed free of cost. Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The respondent no. 2 – Bakshi Electromart has filed its separate reply and contested the case. The purchase of LED by the respondent was admitted and it was denied that he had given any guarantee at its own level. The LED does not stop functioning on its own while playing. He further stated that the respondent has not contacted him on any defect in the LED and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) dated 02.02.2016 allowed the complaint and gave the following order:

“Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed against the respondents and the following relief are being granted:

1. The respondents are ordered that they send the expert mechanic at the residence of the complainant within one month and install a new panel in the LED of the complainant free of cost and again make it functional. If any other part is required to be inserted for making it again functional, then this may also be inserted as per the terms of guarantee/ warranty;

2. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- for mental torture caused due to the complainant due to depriving him from the use of LED and Rs.3,500/- as cost of the case”.

6.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

“The fact is not in dispute that at the time of visit of the mechanic at the place of the complainant – respondent the panel of the TV was found broken and the product was within the guarantee of one year. The contention of the appellant is that panel was broken due to hit by the son of the complainant with ball and there was no manufacturing defect in the same but no such facts have been narrated in the job sheet which was prepared at the spot. The contention of the appellant is that it was not necessary to narrate the same in the job sheet is ill founded. It was a significant fact which came into knowledge of the mechanic when he went to visit the place of the complainant and when job sheet was prepared thee if the fact was that the panel was broken due to hit with ball, it must have been narrated in the job sheet and it clearly suggest that it was only an after though coined contention just to avoid the liability and the forum below has rightly consider the facts of the case and allowed the complaint. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is groundless and it seems that it has been preferred only to harass the consumer.

Hence, in view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with Rs.5,000/- cost.”

7.     Hence, the present revision petition.

8.     I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the lower fora erred in passing the impugned order without insisting on an expert opinion to establish manufacturing defects. He has contended that the panel had been broken due to external force due to the ball hitting the screen of the LED. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand drew our attention to the affidavit of the respondent/ complainant placed on file, wherein it is categorically stated that this is a concocted story by the petitioner. There is no little child in the house, the fact is that he has only one child, who was of 17 years old. He further stated that as per the job sheet which was filed by the service engineer of the petitioner before the respondent only stated that the LED stopped functioning with a loud sound. In the presence of the respondent, the service engineer had not written the fact about the panel being broken. He also drew our attention to the job card wherein it is merely mentioned that ‘Chalte Chalte awaz bund hui’.

9.     Section 13 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under:

“13.   Procedure on admission of complaint – (1) The District Forum shall [on admission of a complaint], if it relates to any goods –

(c )   Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it an authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

10.    In the instant case before us, the service engineer, an expert, was deputed by the petitioner to ascertain the cause of the defective LED. In case the defect could not be found during a house visit, the petitioners mechanic could have taken it to the workshop to establish the defect and have it attended.  There is nothing on record to show that the service engineer who examined the LED had determined that it had stopped due to breaking of the panel. Even in the complaint, the respondent has nowhere mentioned that the panel/ screen had been broken and hence, the LED stopped working. No letter has been placed on record by the respondent to the petitioner regarding the defects found in the TV, the repair required and payment to be made for its rectification. Even though the LED was during the guarantee period, the respondent refused to repair it free of cost and in fact asked for Rs.12,000/- for a LED bought at a cost of Rs.17,500/- just over eight months ago. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the following citations:

1. Classic Automobiles vs Lila Nand Mishra and Ors.

2. Raj Balan vs Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

3. TATA Motors Ltd., vs Keshav Mani and Ors.

4. Maruti Udyog Limited vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anrs.

The fact of the case cited by the counsel for the petitioner does apply to the case on hand.

11.    In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.