BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 8th day of June, 2017
F.A.15/2015 & F.A.4/2016
FIRST APPPEAL No. 15/2015
Sri Ganesh Electronics (Sony World), a
Partnership Firm rep. by its Partner Gautham Nahar
Son of Jawahar Nahar,
No.261 J.N. Street, Puducherry – 605 001.
…. Appellant / 1st Opposite party
Vs.
1. S. Kothandaraman, son of K. Ravindiran
Moogambigai Enclave, 30, Chellan Nagar,
Puducherry – 11.
… Respondent / Complainant
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
A Private Limited Company
No.33 / 13, Shafee Mohammed Road
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. Max Electronics,
Proprietorship Concern,
149, Needarajappayyar Street,
Puducherry – 1.
… Respondents / Opposite Parties 2 and 3
FIRST APPEAL No.4 / 2016
.
S. Kothandaraman, son of K. Ravindiran
Moogambigai Enclave, 30, Chellan Nagar,
Puducherry – 11.
… Appellant / Complainant
vs
1. Sri Ganesh Electronics (Sony World), a
Partnership Firm rep. by its Partner Gautham Nahar
Son of Jawahar Nahar,
No.261 J.N. Street, Puducherry – 605 001.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
A Private Limited Company
No.33 / 13, Shafee Mohammed Road
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. Max Electronics,
Proprietorship Concern,
149, Needarajappayyar Street,
Puducherry – 1.
… Respondents / Opposite Parties 2 and 3
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.39/2011, dt.28.04.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.39/2011
S. Kothandaraman, son of K. Ravindiran
Moogambigai Enclave, 30, Chellan Nagar,
Puducherry – 11.
… Complainant
vs
1. Sri Ganesh Electronics (Sony World), a
Partnership Firm rep. by its Partner Gautham Nahar
Son of Jawahar Nahar,
No.261 J.N. Street, Puducherry – 605 001.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
A Private Limited Company
No.33 / 13, Shafee Mohammed Road
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. Max Electronics,
Proprietorship Concern,
149, Needarajappayyar Street,
Puducherry – 1.
… Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT IN F.A.15/2015:
Thiru S. Vimal,
Advocate, Puducherry
FOR RESPONDENTS IN F.A.15/2015:
Thiru L. Sathish for R1
Advocate, Puducherry
R2 and R3 - Ex parte.
FOR THE APPELLANT IN F.A.4/2016:
Thiru L. Sathish
Advocate, Puducherry
FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN F.A. 4 / 2016:
Thiru S. Vimal,
Advocate for R1 and R2
R3 - ex parte.
C O M M O N O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
These appeals have been filed challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry dated 28.04.2015 made in C.C. 39 / 2011.
2. First Appeal No. 15/2015 has been filed by the first opposite party and First Appeal No. 4/2016 has been filed by the complainant. The parties are referred to in the same position as they have been referred before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.
3. The case of the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry in nutshell is stated hereunder:
The complainant had purchased Sony Branch mini Hi Fi system (Music system) from the first opposite party on 25.03.2006 for a sum of Rs.20,400/- with one year warranty. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the music system and the third opposite party is the Authorised Service Agent. The system developed some problem. Therefore, the complainant approached the first opposite party who has referred the third opposite party. The third opposite party made some repairs, however, the defects could not be rectified. Having waited for a long time, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 21.01.2010. Though said notices were received by the opposite parties, they did not respond and therefore the complainant laid the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.
4. The Reply Version has been filed by the first opposite party, wherein, it denied the allegations made in the complaint. The main submission that has been made in the Reply Version was that the first opposite party being a dealer cannot be held liable. It was also urged that the complaint is not maintainable as it was time-barred.
5. The second opposite party filed their Reply Version. The sum and substance of the Reply Version was that the warranty given to the complainant expired and hence, it cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty. It is also contended in the reply version that the second opposite party is liable only for repair of the product and not liable to replace the product without being any manufacturing defect.
6. The Reply Version has been filed by the third opposite party wherein, it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is also contended that this opposite party is only the service agent to the second opposite party and hence, it is no way responsible for the claims of the complainant. It is also contended therein that the complainant, without any reason, often call the Service Personnel to his house and made some complaint. The Service Personnel had attended to all the complaints and found that the music system is functioning properly.
7. Thus, all the three opposite parties have filed their reply versions seeking for dismissal of the complaint.
8. Before the District Forum, on behalf of the complainant, 12 documents have been filed and they have been marked as Exs.C1 to C12. None had been examined on behalf of the complainant. On behalf of the opposite parties, two documents have been filed and they have been marked as Exs.R1 and R2 and none was examined as witness on the side of the respondents.
9. Three points were formulated by the District Forum and they are:
- Whether the complainant is the Consumer?
- Whether the Opposite Parties attributed deficiency of service?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
10. On the first point, the District Forum found that the complainant is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. On the second point, the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. On the third point, the District Forum has held that the Opposite Parties have to rectify the defects and replace the Master Board of the Hi Fi Music System and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
11. As stated already, the present appeal has been laid by the complainant not satisfied with the amount awarded by the District Forum and the First Opposite Party has filed the appeal challenging the order.
12. The learned Counsel appearing for the first opposite party contended that the first opposite party being a dealer, cannot be held liable for the defects in the Music System. He has relied on the decision reported in 1999 SC page 907 in the case of Hindustan Motors Limited vs N. Siva Kumar. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "………for manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable". It has further held that "The liability must be borne by the manufacturer". The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP 19515/2004. We are of the view that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in
F.A. 15/2015, the first opposite party being a dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defects found in the Wi Fi System. Mr. L. Sathish, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant could not substantiate that the first opposite party is liable for the compensation. In fact, he has fairly admitted that the first opposite party may not be held liable for the defects found in the music system. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the appeal vide Appeal No. 15 / 2015.
14. As far as the appeal No. 4 / 2016 that has been filed by the complainant, we are in entire agreement with the findings rendered by the District Forum that the Music System has got some defects. Though the complainant has tried to his best to rectify the system by entrusting the system to the third opposite party, the same could not be rectified even by the third opposite party, the Authorised Service Agent. However, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Appeal in F.A. 4 / 2016, the District Forum should not have directed the opposite parties to rectify the defects and replace the Master Board of the Wi Fi System since the product is not manufactured by the second respondent. Instead, according to the learned Counsel, the Opposite Parties should have been directed to pay the price for which the complainant has purchased the said system. We are in entire agreement with the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant. When such system is not now manufactured by the second respondent, there is no use in passing the order to rectify the defects and replace the Master Board of the Wi Fi System. Therefore, modifying the said order, we are directing the second opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,400/-, the value of the system, to the complainant. As far as the compensation that has been granted for Rs.10,000/- and the cost of Rs.5,000/-, in our considered view the District Forum has rightly held so and hence, we are not inclined to modify the same.
15. In fine, F.A. 4 / 2016 stands allowed by directing the second opposite party to pay Rs.20,400/- towards the value of the Wi Fi System to the complainant and also confirm the order regarding the compensation payable to the complainant and the cost payable to the complainant.
16. As stated already, Appeal No. 15 / 2015 stands allowed and the first opposite party / appellant is absolved from all its liabilities. The second respondent is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant i.e. Appellant in F.A. 4 / 2016. However, no cost of the first opposite party.
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
