BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F. A. 351/2008 against C.C 169/2007, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
A. S. S. Srinivas
S/o. A.K. S. Sarma
Age: 36 years, Service
Plot No. 5, Sripuri
Sainikpuri, Secunderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. M/s. Padmakala Music Center
A house of Electronics & Home Appliances
H.No. 1-7-96, Kamalanagar
ECIL Post, Hyderabad-500 062
Rep. by its Proprietor.
2. M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Service Center at Begumpet
Hyderabad.
3. M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
Regd. Office at A-31
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
Madhura Road
New Delhi-110 044. *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. M. Hari Babu
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. A.V.D. Narasimha Rao (R3)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 25.3.2006 he purchased a Sony LCD colour T.V. model no. KLV-S32 A10 for Rs. 1, 06,690/- from R1 manufactured by R3 with facility of picture in picture (PIP). When it was installed he found it did not contain PIP facility, which was contrary to the brochure supplied to him. Immediately he informed R1 and requested to take back the T.V or refund the amount, however R1 suggested him to approach R2 customer care centre. When he approached R2 it informed that the TV was not having PIP facility. He purchased the T.V. since the respondents advertised that it had PIP facility. He gave legal notice demanding replacement of the T.V. having PIP facility or refund of the amount. Instead of rectifying the deficiency they threatened and coerced him to sign on some blank papers to desist from approaching any forum. He gave a police complaint against Ops which was registered as Crime No. 659/2006. In fact he suffered mental agony and pain in view of the proceedings and therefore filed the complaint for refund of the amount with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with costs.
3) R1 dealer resisted the case. It admitted that the complainant has purchased the T.V. It was installed by the authorized persons belonging to R3 from the office of R2. It did not supply the catalogue or brochure. In never informed that it had PIP facility nor supplied the catalogue containing the features of the said model. It was not aware that the T.V. was not having such facility. No doubt at page 8 of the catalogue which pertained to the 1st quarter of 2006, it was mistakenly printed that the said model TV contains the facility/feature of PIP. However on the last cover page of the said catalogue it is stated that “while efforts have been made to provide accurate information there would be printing errors which may have crept in. In the event of any discrepancy the product operating instructions supplied with product shall be authentic reference point.” The complainant never approached them for replacement or refund of the amount. It is neither a manufacturer nor informed that it has PIP facility. A belated complaint was made on 14.9.2006 for the offence said to have taken place on 25.3.2006. The police submitted a final report closing the case stating that there was lack of evidence. Therefore the complainant was not entitled to any reliefs, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) R3 equally resisted the case. For the T.V. purchased on 25.3.2006 the complainant intends to rely the catalogue issued for the month of December, 2005. By the time of purchase, a fresh catalogue was issued wherein it is specifically mentioned that there was no PIP facility for the T.V. in question. The complaint was misconceived. At any rate, the catalogue contains the disclaimer in cases of such mistakes. The complainant was relying on the catalogue. The operating instructions of the T.V. set in question, did not mention the PIP facility. The complainant cannot take advantage of a printing error in the catalogue. It is abuse of process of law. The complainant having satisfied with the demonstration with its features/specifications purchased the T.V. set in question which could not have the facility of PIP. He could not have purchased the product of Rs. 1 lakh just relying on the catalogue without scrutinizing the features/specifications. R2 authorized centre had duly recorded and attended all the complaints that were received by it. It did not receive any notice. There was no deficiency on its part. He was not entitled to any of the reliefs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked while the proprietor of R1 filed affidavit evidence and got Exs. B1 to B3 marked.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that catalogue printed undoubtedly reveals presence of PIP facility. However, in view of disclaimer in the catalogue, neither of the respondents was liable. There was no deficiency in service on their part and therefore dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the catalogue published in first part of 2006 clearly mentions that the T.V. purchased by him was having PIP facility. The Dist. Forum has erred in stating that the complainant ought to have returned the T.V. No reply was given to the notice issued by him. Neither the T.V. was replaced nor the amount was refunded which constitutes deficiency in service and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed consequently the complaint.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that on 25.3.2006 the complainant has purchased a Sony LCD colour T.V. model no. KLV-S32 A10 for Rs. 1, 06,690/- from R1 manufactured by R3 evidenced under receipt Ex. A1. The complainant alleges that though catalogue enclosed to Ex. A2 warranty card mentions that the said T.V. was having PIP facility it was not having so. The respondent alleges that Ex. B1 Photostat copy of operating instructions supplied with T.V. to the complainant does not specify PIP facility and that in the catalogue that was printed in the first quarter of 2006 wherein it was mistakenly printed that the said model contained the PIP feature. However, there is a disclaimer on the last page of catalogue for such printing mistakes, and therefore there was no deficiency in service on its part.
10) At the outset, we may state that R1 in its written version has categorically admitted which we excerpt. “It is true that at page 8 of the catalogue pertaining to the 1st quarter of 2006, it is mistakenly printed/written that the said model T.V. contains the facility/feature of picture. However, on the last cover page of the said catalogue, it also state that:
“While efforts have been made to provide accurate information there would be printing errors which may have crept in. In the event of any discrepancy the product operating instructions supplied with product shall be authentic reference point”
While mentioning that it is only a printing mistake, however intends to get over the liability on the ground of disclaimer printed on the last cover page of the said catalogue. It alleges that in the event of any discrepancy, the product operating instructions supplied with product would be binding and authentic. We may mention herein that no customer would expect a catalogue will be supplied with mistakes. At some times customer will go by the catalogue, more so when printed by a reputed company like R3. According to it the operating instructions supplied with the product would be authentic. He ought to have verified it. The contention of the complainant is that when such a manual is supplied along with T.V. there would be no occasion for the purchaser to study. When one enters into the T.V. showroom for purchase of a T.V., it is common for anybody to see the catalogue and the features printed therein and purchase the same. At that point of time, the operating manual would not be supplied. Simply because there was a declaimer, they cannot get over; more so, when it is in a small print mentioning at the end. It is natural for them to mention that “features, specifications, dimensions, and prices mentioned in the catalogue are subject to change without prior notice. However, at the time of purchase, they should inform those changes mentioned. Equally so the features noted in the catalogue with that of the operating manual. The dealer who sells these T.Vs show their catalogue and try to emphasize the features mentioned therein. May be the T.V. displayed in the showroom may have PIP facility. When they supplied, they supplied a T.V. not having the facility. We can take cognizance of these facts. The operating manual contains 118 pages and it is impracticable for any to go through it.
11) Having accepted the mistake, may be a printing one, which made the complainant to purchase T.V since it was proclaimed that it was having PIP facility. They cannot turn round and claim that the complainant ought to have satisfied himself before purchase. These are all un-fair trade practices which can be taken cognizance. We may state that R1 who is the dealer of R3 which admittedly supplied the catalogue admits that there was a printing mistake in the first quarter of 2006 when the complainant has purchased the T.V. It could have replaced all these catalogues rather than distributing to the customers. But for R1 supplying such a catalogue the complainant would not have purchased it. We may also mention herein that R3 manufacturer filed catalogue pertaining to the last quarter of 2005 and first quarter of 2006. A perusal of it does not show as to the period for which the catalogue was released. When models are being frequently changed, necessarily it ought to have printed that those models were for a particular period. This suppression of period is vital. They cannot turn round and say that the operating instructions have to be seen and in the event of any discrepancy, the product operating instructions supplied with product shall be authentic. It governs the case. We have perused the said manual Ex. B2. Even in it the very same disclaimer was made a mention. Therefore there is no authenticity either to the brochure/catalogue that was printed or operating instructions printed by them. When the complainant could show the mistake in the catalogue they refer to manual which equally contains the very same disclaimer. If there was a mistake in it they would always point out the disclaimer and disown the liability.
12) In the light of the fact that the very catalogue printed by them shows the PIP facility for the T.V. purchased by the complainant, and when the T.V. does not have that facility it would undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service though it was not stated in so many words it would even amount to un-fair trade practice.
13) The complainant has purchased the T.V. on 25.3.2006. He has been using the same up till now for a period of four years though without PIP facility. Undoubtedly the complainant has not only issued registered notice but also police complaint which they have received under acknowledgements printed on the reverse of Ex. A1. They could not give any explanation or reply. Obviously they knew full well that there was deficiency in service on their part. However directing replacement with a new TV would equally cause injustice to the respondents. More so when complainant had the pleasure of viewing for four years.
14) Considering the nature of complaint and the conduct of the parties, we are of the opinion that for the so called deficiency in service for not providing PIP feature/facility the complainant is entitled to at least Rs. 15,000/- besides compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony.
15) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- for denial of PIP facility/feature and another Rs. 10,000/-towards compensation for mental agony in all Rs. 25,000/- together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 13. 08. 2010.
*pnr
