BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL AT VIJAWAYADAF.A.No.20 OF
2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.349 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT Between:
1. Videocon Industries Limited
rep. by its Chairman, 14km stone
Aurangabad-
2. Videocon Industries Limited
rep. by its Chairman rep. by its authorised person
3. Ehsan Marketing rep. by its Proprietor
Prakasham Road,
Appellant/opposite parties
Velagapudi
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/ Counsel for the Respondent Party in person
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri
***
1. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the respondent being influenced by the advertisement of the appellant company offering free plasmaTV-32 on purchase of Jumbo 34 flat TV, paid an amount of `13,000/- towards cost of the TV and `750/- towards handling charges and deposited `7,000/- for obtaining entitlement certificate which will mature after two years and eleven months from the date of purchase of Jumbo TV and on maturity of deposit , Jumbo TV would be delivered to him. As the plasma was not given to him as promised, the respondent got issued notice to the appellant company on 20.12.2010 and thereafter another notice on 21.09.2011 demanding them to supply the Plasma TV.
2. The appellants resisted claim on the premise that the advertisement made was voluntary and the offer was subject to terms and conditions of the scheme that after surrendering duly discharged certificate the plasma TV set will be delivered within 30 days and transport charges and local taxes had to be borne by the respondent. The respondent failed to surrender the certificate and he got issued and with dishonest intention he filed complaint before 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The first appellant-company banned plasma TV due to eye effect, over heat and radiation and the product is not available now in the market. The appellants are ready to provide LCD or LED TV as per the choice of the respondent.
3. The respondent filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A10. On behalf of the appellants, the Branch Commercial Head of the second appellant company filed his affidavit and the document, copy of resolution passed by the Committee of Board of Directors of the appellant no.1 company.
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the plea of the appellants that the respondent had not surrendered the entitlement certificate is not sustainable and that due to inaction on the part of the appellant, the respondent could not receive the plasma TV set.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have filed appeal contending that the complaint is not maintainable and that the respondent has to surrender duly discharged certificate to get the plasma TV set at transportation and local taxes to be borne by him and with dishonest intention he filed complaint before III CMM Vijayawada against the appellants. The appellants submitted that Plasma TV 32 is not available now and they are ready to provide LCD or LED TV sets as per the convenience of the respondent in case he is ready to pay the difference amount to the appellants.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the district Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
7. There is no dispute of the fact that the respondent purchased Jumbo 34 Flat TV from the appellants and the appellants offered Plasma 32 TV set on purchase of Jumbo Flat TV. The offer of plasma TV set is subject to the condition of the scheme that the respondent has to invest `7000/- on 11.1.2008 and surrender the certificate issued therefor after a period of 2 years 11 months from the date of purchase of Jumbo Flat TV.
8. The appellants contended that the respondent had not surrendered the entitlement certificate whereas the District Forum held that the plea of the appellant that the respondent did not surrender the certificate cannot be believed. The respondent got issued notice dated 20.12.2010 to the appellants after the prescribed period, the respondent attempted to submit the entitlement certificate and the second respondent refused to receive the certificate.
9. The respondent got issued another notice on 21.9.2011 reiterating the contents of notice dated 20.12.2010 and also brought to the notice of the appellants that he got issued notice earlier and the appellants got the notice returned.
10. In the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the appellants that the respondent had not taken steps to surrender the entitlement certificate after the prescribed period of 2 years 11 months to the respondent. As such, there cannot be an iota of doubt in holding that the respondent complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme in so far as the requirement for surrender of the entitlement certificate is concerned. We do not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the District forum on aspect relating to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
11. The respondent purchased the Jumbo 34 Flat TV set for a sum of `12,990/- and also he deposited a sum of `7000/- in order to get plasma 32 TV set after 2 years and 11 months from the date of purchase of Jumbo TV Set. The respondent has The appellants expressed their inability to handover Plasma TV to the respondent on the premise of banning the brand due to complaints relating to eye effect, over heat and radiation and the non-availability of product in the market. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly awarded refund of the amount. However, the amount granted as compensation, `25,000/- appears to be on higher side.
12. The is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.
13. The Supreme held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable. In “ change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held “While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”.
14. In the light of the principle laid in the aforementioned decisions and keeping in view of the cost of the plasma 32 TV set as also the mental tension suffered by the respondent on being given no response for his request for providing of the plasma 32 TV set, we are of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.10 Accordingly, the relief granted as regards compensation is required to be modified.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum. The opposite parties directed to pay refund an amount of `7,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 11.1.2008 till payment together with costs of `1,000/- and a sum of `10,000/- towards compensation. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.22.03.2013
కెఎంకె*
