BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.239/2008 against C.C.No.63/2007, Dist.Forum, Nellore.
Between:
Rama Electricals, Trunk Road,
Kavali, Nellore Dist.
Rep. by its Proprietor
Mr. Ramachandran. ….Appellant/
2nd opp.party
And
1.Thota Vijaya Kumar,
S/o.Late Thota Gopalakrishnaiah,
Aged about 42 years, R/o.25/1/2390,
N C C Colony, Vengalarao Nagar,
Nellore-524 004. … Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Proprietor, Nirmala Agencies ,
Service Centre, Nirmala Buildings,
Trunk Road, Nellore-524 001. … Respondent/
Opp.party no.1
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T.C.Krishnan
Counsel for the Respondents : -
CORAM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.63/2007 on the file of District Forum, Nellore, the second opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Sansui branded 21 inches colour T.V. from opposite party no.2 for Rs.13,000/- on 16.12.2000 with a warranty for a period of seven years from the date of purchase i.e. the warranty is till 15.12.2007. The complainant submits that at the time of purchase, the opposite party stated that Sansui Service Centre may be contacted in the event of any repair. Opposite party no.1 is an authorized Sansui Centre at Nellore Town. On 6.1.2007 the complainant noticed a defect in the functioning of his T.V. and gave to opposite party no.1 agency on the same day for repair or replacement and Rs.50/- was also collected from him along with the warranty card and after 17 days i.e. on 23.1.2007 the complainant received a phone call asking him to pay Rs.550/- and the complainant refused to pay that amount stating that the T.V. is still under the warranty, but under the compelled conditions the complainant paid the said amount of Rs.550/- for which the bill was issued and the Opposite party no.1 did not give the bill for an amount of Rs.50/- which he had paid on 6.1.2007. On 24.1.2007 mechanic from the opposite party fixed the T.V. in his house and the complainant found that the picture was not displayed. The mechanic did not take back the T.V inspite of several requests. On 29.1.2007 he issued a letter to opposite party no.1 agency but there was no response. He also met the proprietor of the agency and a new T.V. does not cost more than Rs.5000/- but extra amount was demanded from him. The complainant submits that he could not get his T.V. repaired inspite of spending Rs.600/-. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to replace the defective T.V. with new one or refund Rs.13,000/- with interest, compensation, damages and costs.
Opposite party no.1 filed written version stating that they are not aware that the complainant purchased Sansui 21 inches colour T.V. from the second opposite party but admit that on 6.1.2007 the complainant informed that his T.V. had a problem and paid Rs.50/- towards conveyance charges and also Rs.550/- for repair charges on 23.1.2007 . Opposite party no.1 received Main Board from the T.V. and they repaired the same and made it in working condition. Opposite party no.1 submits that it is not a necessary party to this complaint since it is not an authorized service centre nor the dealer and only repaired the T.V. when the complainant approached them for repair and has nothing to do with the warranty and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seek dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Opposite party no.2 though received the notice did not contest the matter.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 allowed the complaint partly directing the opposite party no.2 to replace the new T.V. in the place of defective T.V. after production of the defective T.V. by the complainant to the opp.party no.2 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the opposite party no.2 is directed to refund Rs.13,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 6.1.2007 till the date of realization on production of defective T.V. by the complainant to the opp.party no.2 and complaint against the opp.party no.1 dismissed without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order opposite party no.2 preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party no.2 contended that the T.V. was taken for repair to the opposite party no.1 agency which is not an authorized service centre after seven years of its purchase and that the T.V. was extensively used and that he is not the manufacturer and cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defect.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant purchased Sansui 21 inches colour T.V. from opposite party no.2 as evidenced under Ex.A2 for Rs.13,000/- on 16.12.2000 and it is also not in dispute that there is 7 years warranty and the warranty period ends on 15.12.2007. It is the case of the complainant that the T.V. was defective and not functioning properly and he approached the opposite party no.1 agency and gave it for repair on 6.1.2007 and it was returned to him on 23.1.2007 but the defect continued and that there was no picture displayed and he requested the mechanic to take it back or replace it but his request was refused. The complainant also submits that he paid Rs.50/- on 6.1.2007 and Rs.550/- as demanded by opposite party no.1 and on 24.1.2007 the T.V. was installed in his house and he had made to pay totally Rs.600/- inspite of the fact that the T.V. was under the warranty. It is the case of the appellant/opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.1 is not their authorized service agent and that the complainant had extensively used the T.V. for a period of 7 years and also that for any manufacturing defect the appellant who is only a dealer cannot be made liable. While it is true that the respondent no.1/complainant used the T.V. from 16.12.2000 to 6.1.2007 for a period of 6 years and it is also an admitted fact that the warranty is till 15.12.2007, the contention of the complainant that his T.V. was taken for repair under warranty is sustainable. However the complainant has failed to establish that opposite party no.1 is an authorized service centre and hence the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint against opposite party no.1. The contention of the opposite party no.2 that he is only a dealer and cannot be made liable for the manufacturing defect is unsustainable since he did not even appear before the District Forum inspite of receipt of notice and consequently did not take any steps to implead the manufacturer. It is not the case of the appellant that there was no defect in the T.V. at all during the warranty period. It is their only case that the complainant had used the T.V. extensively and that he had taken it for repair to an agency which is not an authorized service centre. Though we find justifiable grounds in the argument of the complainant that his T.V. was not functioning properly during the warranty period and therefore the appellant is liable to rectify it, however taking into consideration that the complainant had used the T.V. for a period of 6 years and also keeping in view that the T.V. was purchased in the year 2000 and now to direct for replacement after 10 years when models and prices keeping changing frequently we find is not justifiable. Hence we modify the order of the District Forum directing the appellant/opposite party no.2 to take back the defective T.V. and refund an amount of Rs.5000/- together with compensation of Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.2000/-. We set aside the interest at 9% p.a. awarded by the District Forum since the compensation of Rs.3000/- is being awarded by us towards damages.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant/opp.party no.2 to take back the defective T.V. set and refund Rs.5000/- together with compensation of Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.19.2.2010
pm
