(Per Shri S.R.Khonzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 07/09/2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.402/10 – Sou.Sujata Mahesh Parmale & ors. Vs. M/s. Sharp India Limited – by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (the forum in short).
(2) The alleged deficiency in service is in respect of not repairing the colour T.V. on 03/03/2010, though it was under free service period which lasted upto 28/09/2010. The forum upholding the case of the complainant directed the opponent No.2 company, who is the appellant, to replace the colour T.V. set of the same model or alternatively to pay `12,990/- as compensation and further to pay `2,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and 1,000/- as costs. Aggrieved thereby, original opponent No.2 company preferred this appeal.
(3) With the consent of the parties, we heard the parties finally at the stage of admission itself.
(4) The facts as emerged are not in dispute but the inferences drawn by the forum on their basis are challenged, particularly in respect of the fact of not giving service on 03/03/2010 as per the extended period of service agreement. It is pointed out by the appellant and which is a case consistently put up by the appellant in their earlier correspondence as well as through their written version that as per the terms of 6 years’ free service, the defect which was noticed on 03/03/2010 and earlier on 05/08/2009, 03/09/2009 and 29/10/2009 is to the effect that the T.V. set found dead due to “high voltage, dead chassis burnt due to high voltage or reverse current” and, therefore, it would not fall within free service but would be a paid service and, thus giving the estimate for repair was proper and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The relevant service contract condition for 6 years’ free service reads as under :-
“Any defects/degradation in performance on account of specific location of the installation of the TV set. Any damage to the TV set on account of mishandling, accident, natural calamity, lighting, high voltage transmission in electricity or which may have been tampered with, altered, serviced by any agent not authorized by the Company in writing and which in the Company’s opinion affects its reliability and performance.”
(underlining provided)
(5) Since the damage was caused due to high voltage transmission in electricity, the nature of the repairs asked for on 03/03/2010, certainly, does not warrant any free service. Warranty and free service are two different things. Therefore, in the instant case, the forum committed an error by ignoring this exclusion clause and arrived at wrong conclusion. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal is allowed.
(2) The impugned order passed in Consumer Complaint No.402/10 by the District Forum, Kolhapur is set aside and in turn, the complaint stands dismissed.
(3) The amount deposited by the appellant u/s.15 of the proviso in the State Commission is to be returned to the appellant after the revision period is over.
Pronounced on 30th June, 2011.
