ORDER ON ADMISIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against Respondent No-1 Firm a Trader dealing in Home Appliances and Respondent No 2 & 3 are the producer of T.V. and other Electronic goods. It is his case that on 22-06-05 the complainant purchased one piece of SONY-WEGA Colour T.V. Set of 21” Screen made of the Respondents 2 & 3 for Rs. 15,103/- under Bill No. 366/- dt. 22-06-05. It performed well only for few days and within few days it started trouble. For the first time when this T.V. went out of order, the complainant reported the same to Respondent. A representative from the Respondent NO-1 came and took internal parts of T.V. for repairs. After the repairs it worked well for a few months and again its started giving trouble. On 08-06-06 the representatives of Respondents who had come to repair informed that the T.V. set suffers from manufacturing defects as such it is not being repaired properly. Immediately the complainant approached Respondent NO-1 for permanent solution by replacing the T.V. Set with new one. But the Respondent refused to do so.<br /> <br /> On account of non-performance of T.V., entire the family members deprived of entertainment and put to mental shock. It is defective and the defect is inherent in the T.V. Set. In-view of refusal of the Respondents to replace the T.V. the complainant is left with no alternative but to approach this Forum. So he has sought for direction to Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to replace the T.V. Set with new one and to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony along with costs of litigation.<br /> <br /> 2. Except the Cash Bill regarding purchase of T.V, the complainant has not substantiated by any material-particulars regarding T.V. going out of order and frequent repairs done by representatives of Respondent NO-1 and his informing manufacturing defect of the T.V. and the refusal of Respondents to replace the T.V. Set.<br /> <br /> 3. In the first hearing, this Forum advised Sriyuth Manjunath Hiremath & Prasanna Sharma, Advocates for the complainant [being juniors of Sri.N.Chandrashekharayya, Senior Advocate] for producing copy of any documents/material to prima-facie substantiate the deficiency of service by the Respondents having regard to the averments made in the complaint. On 29-06-06 & 30-06-06 however no material/document was produced and lastly on 17-07-06 they filed written arguments. Besides we heard Sri. N.Chandrashekharayya Advocate who argued by referring the definition section of complaint, the manner of filing of the complaint U/s. 12 and the enquiry stage of the complaint U/s. 13 of C.P. Act reiterating that there is no provision in the C.P. Act for enclosing documents to the complaint and that as per section 2-1(c) and 12 of C.P. Act a complaint containing allegations in writing is sufficient for entertaining the complaint. In para-8 of the written arguments it is specifically stated that. “While arguing the mater for admission this Forum referred a paragraph at Page-172 of the Book-“ Law of Consumer Protection 2nd Edition 2003 by Dr. G.B. Reddy specifying the following contents.<br /> ………. “The complaint must be accompanied by the documents in-support of allegation contained in the complaint……..” <br /> <br /> With great respect to the Members of the Form it is submitted that the said paragraph in the Book is the opinion of Author of the said book and it is not Rule or Law and further submitted that the allegations in the case relating to defect in the goods supplied by the Respondents there cannot be any documents to show the defects in the T.V. Set and after the appearance if the Respondents deny the allegations, there is provision for getting the T.V. Set tested by an expert U/s. 13(1)(c). This Forum can pass suitable orders on the basis of the material particulars placed by the parties the question of production of any documents in-support of the allegations along with the complaint does not arise”.<br /> <br /> 4. With this background let us consider whether the complainant has made out a prima-facie case for admitting the complaint for enquiry. A complaint under the Act can be made only when there is a defect in the goods or deficiency in services. Rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of the case. Deficiency will arise only when an activity is a ‘service’. It also connotes willful non-performance of a service which ought to otherwise to be performed or denial of a service which is not so denied to others placed in similar circumstances. <br /> <br /> 5. In the case at hand, the complainant alleges that a few days after purchase of SONY-WEGA Colour T.V. Set from Respondent No-1 under cash bill dt. 22-06-05, it went out of order and he reported the same to the Respondent NO-1 whose representative came and took out internal part of T.V. for repairs and after repair the T.V. worked well for a few months and thereafter it again started giving trouble and when it went out of order on 08-06-06 the representative of Respondents who had come to repair the T.V. informed that the T.V. Set suffers from manufacturing defect as such it is not being repaired properly and then he immediately approached Respondent No-1 for permanent solution by replacing the T.V. Set with new one but the Respondent NO-1 refused to do so hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> 6. Here in this case except the bare contention and except purchase bill, the complainant has not substantiated prima-facie the alleged deficiency in service by the Respondents by producing any material-particulars. During the course of argument for admission it was argued [but not averred in the complaint] that there is a mention of one-year warranty period in the cash bill and they did approach for replacement within the warranty period. The cash bill dt. 22-06-05 produced is a carbon copy, having mention of “one-year warranty” written with ball pen. So to say this mention of handwriting is not a carbon copy. However there is no prima-facie substantative piece of material regarding the repairs got done and refusal for replacement of new one by the Respondents on 08-06-06. In this background we had advised the Advocates to file any material/document showing the deficiency in service as to admit the complaint for enquiry. At that juncture this Forum had referred Dr. G.B. Reddys Law of Consumer Protection 2nd Edition 2003 referring the Synopsis-8 on page No-172 to the effect that every complaint must be accompanied by documents in-support of their allegations in the complaint. This is also supported by Regulation 7(2) of Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 issued by Hon’ble National Commission reported in Consumer Charter at page No.45 issued by Hon’ble State Commission.<br /> <br /> 7. In the first instance the said Advocates submitted that they will get some documents as there is a record with the Respondent shop for having complained regarding defects of T.V. and repair got done through representatives of Respondents. But subsequently they stick-on to their submissions that there is no mandatory provision for enclosing documents along with the complaint as stated in the written arguments. It is significant to note that in other complaints filed earlier to and during the pendency of this complaint from the very office of the Advocates, number of documents had been filed along with such complaints which were admitted on the ground of prima-facie case of deficiency of service by OP. The present complaint is rather a stray instance in which a submission that there is no mandatory provision for enclosing documents has been made as stated above.<br /> <br /> 8. As stated supra except bare allegations in the complaint, there is no prima-facie material-particulars regarding deficiency of service by the Respondents to show the cause of action as to admit the complaint for enquiry. So it is a fit case to reject the complaint as per section 12(3) of the Act. <br /> Hence the complaint of the complainant is hereby rejected. <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri.Pampannagouda <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> On Leave<br /> Smt.Kavita Patil <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br />