Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.5.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.5000/- and directed the OPs (now appellants) to get the CTV repaired and deliver it to the complainant free of cost, after making it fully functional upto his entire satisfaction. It was also directed that the OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant, for causing him physical harassment , mental agony and pain. The OPs were also jointly and severally directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.5000/- was to carry interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e. 11.11.2009 till its payment. It was also made clear, in the order, that in case, the CTV in question was found to be non-repairable, the same would be replaced with a new one of the same configuration, and model with one year’s fresh warranty. 2. The complainant had purchased a CTV make Samsung, Model No.29”CS29A730ELTXXL from OP-1 (now appellant No.2) for a sum of Rs.17,300/- on 30.04.2008. After one month, the operational features of the said TV Jammed. He made many oral, as well as written requests to OP-1 for its rectification, but all in vain. On 16.07.2008, he lodged a complainant at customer care centre of OP-2 (now appellant NO.1) and after several requests and reminders, OP-2, sent an engineer, who gave an assurance that the TV would be made functional, after replacing the main circuit board. Thereafter, neither the said engineer, nor any other engineer, visited his premises for rectification of the defect in the TV. Thereafter, two legal notices were sent to the OPs for rectification of the defect, but to no avail. It was stated that the OPs were grossly deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. OP No.2, in its reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case regarding purchase of CTV on 30.4.2008 for a sum of Rs.17300/- of the model, mentioned in the complaint, by the complainant. It was, however, stated that the OPs were ready and willing to ascertain the defect in the TV. It was further stated that once a complaint was made by the complainant that the CTV was not properly working, which was attended to. It was further stated that the OPs had sought permission of the District Forum to inspect the TV, in order to ascertain, as to whether, there was any defect in the same. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the TV. It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. OP NO.1 was duly served, but none on its behalf put in appearance before the District Forum, so it was proceeded against ex parte. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellants/OPs. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that, one complaint was received from the complainant, which was attended to by their engineer. He further submitted that, thereafter, no complaint from the complainant was received regarding the defect in TV or any part thereof. He further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect, in the TV. He further submitted that no expert evidence was produced by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the TV. He further submitted that even an application was moved by OP NO.2 before the District Forum seeking permission to inspect the TV for ascertaining the defect, it was carrying, so as to enable him, to get the same rectified. He further submitted that the case of the complainant was based on no evidence at all. He further submitted that the appellants/OPs were still ready to rectify the defect, if any. He further submitted that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, nor the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that right from the very beginning of the purchase of CTV, it started giving trouble. He further submitted that after about one month of purchase of the TV, its operational features jammed. He further submitted that he made a number of complaints and only once an engineer of the OPs came to his premises, who gave assurance that the TV would be made functional, after changing the main circuit board. He further submitted that thereafter nobody came to make the TV functional, though complaints were made during the warranty period. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the CTV aforesaid was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1, vide retail invoice annexure C-1, on 30.4.2008. The warranty period of CTV was from 30.4.2008 to 29.4.2009. It was the definite case of the complainant that after about one month of the purchase of the CTV, the operational features thereof jammed. In the written statement, this fact was not expressly denied by OP NO.2. It was admitted by OP NO.2, in para-3, on merits, that once a complaint was made by the complainant, and the same was attended to forthwith. It was also admitted, in this para by OP No.2, that the CTV required some adjustments to be made, and the same were duly explained to the complainant. This clearly goes to show that even the OPs admitted that there was defect in the TV, referred to above, as pointed out by the complainant. In case, that defect was removed/rectified, and the CTV was made fully functional, the OPs could produce the job card, but they did not do so. This clearly proves that the defect, which was existing in the TV, was not at all rectified. Mere visit of the engineer, to the premises of the complainant, for inspection of the CTV, in itself, could not be said to be sufficient, until and unless, he was able to rectify the defect, pointed out by the complainant. Even two legal notices annexure C-2 and C-3 were also issued by the complainant, to the OPs, but they did not send any reply to the same. Since, the CTV was within the warranty period, when the complaints were made from time to time, it was the legal duty of the OPs, to rectify the defect, as per terms and conditions of the warranty. They, on the other hand, continuously harassed the complainant, though he made a number of complaints, by not removing the defect existing in the CTV. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and causing a lot of harassment to the complainant. 12. No doubt, an application was moved by OP NO.2, during the pendency of the complaint, seeking permission to inspect the TV, but no reply to the same was filed. However, filing of such an application, was merely a subterfuge, on the part of the OPs, to wriggle out of the mess, they had created. Such an application, was filed by OPs, just to create a defence, to wriggle out of their liability, which, ultimately, may have been fastened upon them . Even otherwise, the time was granted to the OPs, vide the impugned order, to rectify the defect, in the CTV, to make it fully functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, but they failed to comply with the same, though operation of this part of the order was not stayed by this Commission. This clearly exhibits the negative attitude of the OPs. It means that the offer of the OPs to inspect the CTV to rectify its defect, was hollow. The application, so moved, by the OPs, thus, had no bearing on the merits of the complaint. 13. The order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
