Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. Complaint is admitted on 03.01.2008.
The Complainant submits that he had purchased BPL Quodra Focus Model T.V manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 on 3.9.2001 for sale price of Rs.22,990/-.
It is submitted that, the said Television developed some problems of which there was no display for functioning of Television set on and from 22.7.2007. Immediately thereafter the Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.2 authorized dealers. On instruction from Opposite Party No.2 the Television set was delivered to Opposite Party No.3 shop being authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 on 24.7.2007. The Opposite Party No.3 had informed the Complainant that a critical part namely “YOKE” of the Television set needs to be replaced and the same has to be obtained from Opposite Party No.1 who is a manufacturer.
The Complainant submits that, the Opposite Parties have promised that the part would be obtained from Opposite Party No.1 within a day and the Television set duly repaired and would be returned to the Complainant within a period of two days, contrary to this the Complainant was informed by Opposite Party No.3 on 28.7.2007 that the Television set was repaired and ready for delivery and charged Rs.1,600/- towards repair charges. When the Complainant brought the Television set to his house the display in the Television was not cleared and distorted images used to display on the Television set and thereafter the Complainant once again requested Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to depute the manufacturer’s technical staff stationed in Mangalore to inspect the Television set and set right the fault. The technical staff inspected the Television set and informed that the defect cannot be set right unless the exact spare part pertaining to the particular model is fitted to the Television set. The technical staff removed part and replaced with original defective part to the Television and the person also refunded the amount paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.3 and expressed his helplessness.
Complainant had delivered the Television set to Opposite Party No.2 for the second time on 22.8.2007. However, the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 failed to repair the Television set for want of technical know–how and/or suitable spare and they have not rendered the service to the Complainant as manufacturer, as authorized dealer and authorized service dealer that amounts to deficiency in service and thereafter Complainant sent a lawyer’s notice dated 19.9.2007 to the Opposite Parties. In spite of that Opposite Party have not complied the repair work of the Television and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay of Rs.500/- towards cost of transportation of Television Set and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of entertainment and Rs.25,000 towards mental agony and further 5,000/- claimed towards the cost of the complaint.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. Opposite Party No.1 and 3 despite of receiving notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date and hence we have proceed exparte against Opposite Party No.1 and 3.
Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed version. First point raised by this Opposite Party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. However, admitted that the Television set was sold to the Complainant on 3.9.2001.
This Opposite Party submits that, 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer any service or other matters relating to the functioning of the Television set is a matter between the Complainant and the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and 3 not the Opposite Party No.2. And further submitted that regarding critical part i.e. yoke or its replacement or not having stock or making promise to return with in two etc. are all un connected to this Opposite Party and this Opposite Party provided standby Television as a matter of good gesture to maintain customer relationship and further submitted that this Opposite Party has no any responsibility in the matter since it was sold long back and contended there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant– Sri M.Ramdas Prabhu (CW1), filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and Ex.C1 to C5 were marked in support of his case. One G.P.A holder of Opposite Party No.2 (RW1) filed affidavit and served the interrogatories. Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:
REASONS
5. Points No. (i) to (iv):
It is undisputed fact that, Complainant had purchased Television set BPL Quodra Focus Model manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 being the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1 on 3.9.2001 for a sale price of Rs.22,990/-. It is also not in dispute that, the Television was purchased by the Complainant for his use at his residence. The said set developed some problems on account of which there was no display/functioning of the Television set on and from 22.7.2007. Thereafter, under instruction from Opposite Party No.2 the Television was delivered by the Complainant at the shop of Opposite Party No.3 being the authorized service dealer of Opposite Party No.1 on 24.7.2007. It is again not disputed that, the Opposite Party No.3 had informed that a critical part namely “YOKE” of the Television set needs to be replaced on the said spare being secured from the office of Opposite Party No.1 as Opposite Party No.3 was not holding that particular part in ready stock. It is further admitted that on 28.7.2007 the Television set is repaired and kept ready for delivery and the Complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.1,600/- towards repair charges and taken back the Television set. Even the repaired set was brought back to his house being switched-on, the display of the
Television was not clear and distorted images used to be displayed on the Television set and there after the Complainant again requested Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to depute the manufacturers technical staff stationed in Mangalore to inspect the Television set and set right the fault. The technical staff inspected the Television set and informed that the defect cannot be set right unless the exact spare part pertaining to the particular model is fitted to the Television set. The technical staff removed part and replaced with original defective part to the Television and the person also refunded the amount paid i.e Rs.1,600/- to Opposite Party No.3 and informed that the defect cannot be set right unless the exact spare part pertaining to the particular model is fitted to the Television set.
And further it is not disputed that the Complainant once again approached Opposite Party No.2 for the second time on 3.8.2007 and on 22.8.2007 the Complainant had delivered the Television set to Opposite Party No.2 for repair for the second time.
The above set of admitted /undisputed facts reveals that a critical part i.e. “YOKE” of the Television set needs to be replaced, on the said spare being secured from the manufacturer. And further it could be seen that Opposite Party No.2 and 3 being a dealer and authorized service provider tried their level best to set right the problem even though non-supply of the critical part as mentioned above i.e. “YOKE” of the Television set by the Opposite Party No.1 i.e manufacturer they could not rectify the problems in the Television and further we find that the Opposite Party No.2 as a dealer provided standby set to the Complainant as a gesture of good will and good faith to develop good relationship.
On overall considering the documents placed by the parties as well as the admitted facts produced before the Forum it is proved beyond doubt that the grievances of the Complainant is not with regard to any supply of defective product by the Opposite Parties but with regard to their failure to render service of repairs sought for and consequential loss of the very Television set delivered by Opposite Party. As admitted by the Opposite Parties that the critical spare part i.e. “YOKE” was not supplied by the manufacturer and expressed their helplessness.
Apart from the above on the presentation of the above complaint this Forum admitted the complaint and issued notice to the Opposite Parties, despite of service of notice the 1st and 3rd Opposite Party i.e. manufacturer and service dealer not appeared nor denied their liability that means the entire evidence is not contraverted though opportunity was afforded to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party was not availed of the same.
Under that circumstances, it is presumed that the entire grievance made by the Complainant appears to be genuine and it requires no further proof.
However, it is noted that the Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel and raised a contention that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24(a) of the Act stating that the Television set was purchased by the Complainant on 3.9.2001. The alleged defect or complaint or problem had arisen according to the Complainant on 22.7.2007 and the complaint is filed more than 6 years after the date of purchase and hence the complaint is not maintainable. In order to consider as to which is the correct date of approval of cause of action? Is it the date of purchase of Television set by the Complainant or it is the date of entrustment of the Television for repair. In the present case, the complaint is filed by the Complainant is not with regard to any supply of defective product by the Opposite Parties but with regard to the failure of the Opposite Parties to render services of repairs for the Television set by delivering a spare part as mentioned above i.e. “YOKE” and repair the Television set and to deliver back the same to the Complainant. That means the cause of action has definitely accrued to the Complainant only from the date of entrustment of the Television to the Opposite Party for repair i.e. on and from 24.7.2007, 22.8.2007 the respective date on which the T.V. set was deliver to the Opposite Parties for repair. Hence the contention of the 2nd Opposite Party with regard to the limitation is rejected as the same has no merit in it.
Apart from the above discussion it is proved beyond doubt that, the Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of T.V. and 2nd Opposite Party is the agent of the Opposite Party No1 and 3rd Opposite Party is the service provider. Being a manufacture of the above Television set it is the bounded duty of the manufacturer to supply the spare parts supply or make available spare parts to the public/consumers who has purchased the T.V. of the above brand and repair the same and deliver to the consumers, in this case the Complainant. On failure to repair the above alleged T.V. set till this date amounts to deficiency in service for that the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to make good loss to the Complainant.
However, the Complainant has claimed from the Opposite Party Rs.22,990/- towards the price of the T.V. and further claimed compensation towards entertainment, mental agony and costs of the litigation expenses.
By considering the claim of the Complainant we have noticed that the alleged set was purchaser in the year 3.9.2001 and the defect was noticed on and from 22.7.2007.
By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 hereby are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire sale price of Rs.22,990/- to the Complainant by taking back the T.V. set and also the Complainant is directed to return the Standby set to the Opposite Party if provided. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as litigation expenses. The above said amount shall be payable to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the above said order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 hereby are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire sale price of Rs.22,990/- to the Complainant by taking back the T.V. set and also the Complainant is directed to return the Standby set to the Opposite Party if provided. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as litigation expenses. The above said amount shall be payable to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the above said order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of July 2008.)
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri M.Ramdas Prabhu.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 19.09.2007: Office copy of Lawyer’s Notice sent to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3.
Ex.C2: Postal Acknowledgement for device of legal notice on Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.C3: 21.9.2007: Postal acknowledgement for device of legal notice on Opposite Party No.2
Ex.C4: 22.9.2007: Postal Acknowledgemetn for device of legal notice on Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.C5: 8.10.2007: Reply notice got issued by Opposite Party No.2.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Mr.Omprakash. G.P.A holder of Opposite Party No.2
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated:31.07.2008 PRESIDENT
31.07.2008:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 hereby are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the entire sale price of Rs.22,990/- to the Complainant by taking back the T.V. set and also the Complainant is directed to return the Standby set to the Opposite Party if provided. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as litigation expenses. The above said amount shall be payable to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the above said order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
