IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANKURA.
Proceeding Case No.28 of 1996.
Siddhartha Dey, s/o Late Shishir Kr. Dey, residing at Noongola Road, P.O.
P.S. & Dist. Bankura.
……………….Complainant.
V e r s u s
‘Melodious’ – Prop. Sri Subhra Mondal, Schooldanga, P.O., P.S. & Dist.
Bankura.
……….…….Opposite Party.
Present :-
T. Basu. (President).
P.K.Mukhopadhyay. (Member).
A.Agnihotri. (Member).
Judgement : Dated 31.07.2009.
The present case was filed by one Siddhartha Dey of Noongola Road,
Bankura against a proprietorship firm named “Melodious”, situated at
Schooldanga, Bankura with an allegation of deficiency in service.
Case of the Complainant, as made out in the petition of complaint, is that on 23.09.1995 he purchased one colour T.V. set of (AKAI make Model : CT – 1407 P) with remote control facility from the O.P., an authorized dealer of the aforesaid T.V. manufacturing company on proper consideration of money. The set was covered under warranty for period of one year only from the date of purchase. Within a few days the audio-visual system as well as the memory system of the T.V. set started giving trouble and matter was reported to the O.P.. Thereafter the set turned dead. The petitioner lodged a complaint to the O.P. who repaired the same. Within a period of six months the audio system of the T.V. set became totally out of order for which the petitioner again lodged a complaint to the O.P. who took back the set to his show-room on 07.07.1996. The set was not returned to the Complainant till the date of filing this case. On 23.11.1996, during pendency of the case, the set was returned to the Complainant in defective condition. This fact was duly noted by the Complainant in the delivery receipt issued by the O.P..
Further case of the complainant is that the T.V. set had in-born manufacturing defect for which the same failed to render proper service to the consumer. Under such circumstances, the Complainant is highly prejudiced and he had suffered loss and damage which is required to be compensated. He prays for an order for replacement of the set by a new one along with compensation for Rs.5,000/- only.
O.P. contests the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against him. According to the O.P., he is not a manufacturer of T.V. set and as such he has got no liability whatsoever. O.P. makes averment that the T.V. set had some audio problem within the warranty period which was duly repaired. The I.C. of the audio system refused to function due to fluctuation of power which is very common in Bankura. When the T.V. set was received by the O.P. for the purpose of getting the same repaired another colour portable T.V. set of “Sharp” brand was given to the Complainant so that no inconvenience was caused to him. On 22.11.1996 the O.P. had telephonic talk with the Complainant who requested the O.P. to send back the T.V. set to his residence. Accordingly, the set was returned to the Complainant in proper order. The set, at that time, was rendering good service having no technical defect. Yet the Complainant made an endorsement of objection in the delivery receipt issued by the O.P.. Case of the Complainant is a frivolous one and it bears no merit for which the same is liable to be dismissed.
The main point for consideration before us whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of the O.P..
Decision with reasons.
Parties to the case did not adduce any verbal evidence to establish their
respective stands. Complainant filed a few documents in support of his case
while the O.P. did not file any testimony. It is needless to say that the merit
of the case is to be assessed and ascertained only on the basis of the materials
on record.
On 23.09.1995 the Petitioner / Complainant purchased one colour T.V. (AKAI make model no. : CT – 1407 P) along with a remote control device from the O.P. on payment of consideration for Rs.11,800/- only. The relevant cash memo in original is filed by the Complainant in support of his case. The consumer commodity was covered under warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. Accordingly, one Warranty Card was issued on the very same date giving protection to the Complainant for the said period of one year. The Warranty Card in original is also filed and is relied upon by the Complainant to substantiate his case. These two points are simultaneously admitted by the O.P..
Position being such, the status of the Complainant as a “consumer” is well founded.
Secondly, a defect in the T.V. set was detected and found within the warranty period – this fact too was categorically admitted by the O.P. in paragraph-11 of his written version. Let us quote the relevant statement for better understanding :-
“It is true that the T.V. set had some audio problem within the warranty period which was repaired. The I.C. of the audio became nonfunctioning due to fluctuation of power which is very common in Bankura. The O.P., on receiving the T.V. set, sent to the Asansole for necessary repair and in the mean time he placed a “Sharp” colour portable T.V. set to the petitioner so that he suffers no inconvenience. On 22.11.1996 the petitioner had a telephonic talk to the O.P who requested him to send the T.V. to his home. At that time, it was not disclosed by him that the instant proceeding was already initiated by him. However, the technicians of O.P. installed the T.V. set in the home of the petitioner who with some ulterior motive endorsed his objection in the delivery receipt though there was no reason whatsoever to do so.
The T.V. set had no technical defect at all and it is now giving proper service to the petitioner…….”.
By such statement of the O.P., the scope and ambit of our consideration becomes limited. Now, the moot question before us is whether the defect in the T.V. set was duly repaired, removed and rectified or whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of the O.P. in view of the undertaking made in the Warranty Card ?
Incidentally, let us touch one point here. In paragraph-2 of the written version the O.P. has taken the plea that since he is not the manufacturer of the T.V. set, virtually, he has got no liability and as such he cannot be proceeded against. This contention of the O.P. appears to be a bogus and meaningless one. O.P. happens to be the dealer or agent of the manufacturer for which he has got some obligation and responsibility to bear. Apart from that, what is the meaning of a Warranty Card and why the same was issued by the O.P. at the time of purchase of the T.V. set and what was the purpose and intention of the said Card ? Answers are hidden in the questions themselves. The present O.P. stands between the buyer and the manufacturer with specific responsibility to discharge. His liability does not cease as soon as the consumer commodity is sold out. On such
observation of ours we straightway refuse to attach any importance to the O.P.’s contention made in the para-2 in the written version.
Admittedly, on 22.11.1996 the T.V. set is returned to the Complainant by the O.P. . Here the Complainant has got to say that the set was sent back in defective condition for which he duly noted his objection in the delivery receipt. On the other hand, the O.P. is to say that the set was given to the Complainant after removal of defects and as such there was no deficiency in service from his side. The contention of the Complainant is not based on truth. Of course, it has been simultaneously admitted by the O.P. that at the time of delivery of the T.V. set, the Complainant registered his objection in writing by making an endorsement in the delivery slip. Surprisingly, the O.P. was silent over this note of objection at the relevant time and also at subsequent stage. Only when the written version was filed, the matter was opposed and it was stated that such objection was given by the Complainant with ulterior motive. This act of the O.P., in our considered opinion, is suggestive. Why the O.P. was silent on this point since 22.11.1996 to 06.04.1999, the date of filing written version ? No answer was offered by the O.P.. During this period O.P. did not make any effort to nullify the claim of the Complainant that the T.V. set was defective, as earlier, even when the same was returned. Natural presumption naturally goes in favour of the Complainant, against the O.P.. It is limpid that the O.P. suffered a note of objection endorsed by the Complainant. This is the decisive factor in the case, as we feel.
It is also significant to note that when the O.P. was asked to return the set on 22.11.1996 over telephone, the same was returned at once and that too in good condition, as claimed by the O.P.. This is also indicative. Had the T.V. set been in perfect condition, why the same was not returned to the O.P. prior to telephonic talk ? The reason is not clear to us – the reason thereof is best known to the O.P. only. Deficiency in service from the side of the O.P. is apparent.
In the totality of what we have discussed and observed in the foregoing paragraph we are of opinion that some sort of relief should go to the Complainant in the interest of justice.
Case of the Complainant succeeds. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the case of the Complainant is allowed on contest.
The O.P. is hereby directed to get the Complainant’s T.V. set
(Akai make, Model : CT-1407 P, purchased on 2309.1995 vide cash memo no.436) repaired at his (O.P.’s) own cost within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Alternatively, the entire consideration money (Rs.11,800/- only) be refunded to the Complainant together with simple interest thereupon @ 6% p.a. to be calculated from the date of filing this case till the date of payment of money.
The alternative direction, made above, be complied with by the O.P. within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
Parties be given copy of this Judgement & Order free of cost.