Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
Smt. Basanti Devi & S. Kulwant Singh, Members
V.S. GUPTA—Appellant
versus
M/s. RAJDHANI ELECTRONICS & ORS.—Respondents
F.A. No. 415 of 1993—Decided on 24.12.1993
A seller is liable for selling a defective product and for any tampering with the product.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SALE OF GOODS ACT - SECTION 14, 15, 16 - DEFECTIVE TELEVISION SET - TAMPERING WITH BRAND NAME AND SERIAL NUMBER - LIABILITY OF SELLER - COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Beltek colour TV set from the respondent, which was defective from the beginning. The TV set was left with the respondent for repairs in January 1992, and the complainant was provided with a black and white TV set for use during the repair period. The complainant discovered that the original colour tube had been removed and replaced with an old one, and the brand name and serial number plates had been tampered with. The complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum seeking replacement of the defective set and compensation for mental harassment and financial loss.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum found that the respondent had sold the defective TV set to the complainant and that the respondent had tampered with the TV set by removing the original colour tube and replacing it with an old one, and by tampering with the brand name and serial number plates. The District Forum directed the respondent to carry out the necessary repairs to the TV set, with the complainant bearing half of the cost of repairs.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was liable for selling a defective TV set to the complainant. 2. Whether the respondent was liable for tampering with the TV set. 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental harassment and financial loss.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The respondent was liable for selling a defective TV set to the complainant because the TV set was defective from the beginning and the respondent failed to repair the TV set properly. 2. The respondent was liable for tampering with the TV set because the respondent removed the original colour tube and replaced it with an old one, and tampered with the brand name and serial number plates. 3. The complainant was entitled to compensation for mental harassment and financial loss because the respondent failed to provide the complainant with a properly functioning TV set and caused the complainant mental harassment and financial loss.
Final Decision: The State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the direction of the District Forum requiring the complainant to bear half the cost of repairs, and awarded the complainant Rs. 2000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President— The partly successful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hissar.
2. Prof. V.S. Gupta (complainant) of the Agricultural University, Hissar had purchased a Beltek colour T.V. set from respondent No. 1 M/s. Rajdhani Electronics, Hisar for Rs. 11,400/- on the 16th of October, 1990. It would appear that the said T.V. is as defective initially been the very beginning but, apparently get completely out of order in Jan., 92 and the appellant left the same with the respondent No. 1 for repairing the same. The said set was also covered by insurance with M/s. United Insurance Company Limited and the appellant also informed the said Company about the condition of the set and apparently lodged a claim and the latter even appointed a surveyor, who inspected the T.V. set at the premises of the respondent No. 1. He surprisingly found that the sticker of the brand name and also its serial number plate had been removed from the original places and further that the picture tube has also been removed and instead some old faulty picture tube had been fixed. He accordingly submitted a report to the Insurance Company, but the latter repudiated the claim. Unable to get redress from either the insurers or respondent No. 1, the appellant knocked at the door of the District Forum seeking the replacement of the defective set and a compensation of Rs. 5000/- for mental harassment & financial loss.
3. On notice being issued, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their replies taking various pleas, to which reference now becomes unnecessary, if not wasteful because no relief against mem was now claimed or pressed by the appellant. However, respondent No. 1 filed a written statement, so replete with contradictions and specious pleas, that the District Forum rightly labelled it to be self contradictory from top to bottom. It seems unnecessary to delve into them because on the one hand the stand taken was that the said T.V. had neither been sold by respondent No. 1 nor entrusted to them for repairs, whilst in the rest of the written statement, the averments were totally at variance therewith.
4. The complainant filed a replication, in which he stoutly Forum the respondent No. 1 came round to admit the following facts as recorded in the order under appeal in para 5:
“(1) That said T.V. was sold by respondent No. 1 to complainant on 16-10- 1989.
(2) Complainant is the owner of colour TV of Beltek Mark.
(3) Said TV had become defective in January 1992 and complainant had left the same with respondent No. 1 for repairing purposes.
(4) That respondent No. 1 had spared a Black. & White TV to complainant for use and occupation free of charges.
(5) That said colour TV is yet with respondent No. 1.”
5. On the aforesaid premise and upon further perusal of the materials, the District Forum categorically observed that they had no hesitation, in holding that the original colour tube was removed from the T.V. set by respondent No. 1 and old ones were inserted in place thereof, apart from tampering with the brand name and the serial number plates etc. On that basis, the District Forum observed that the only point that survive was the nature of the relief to be accorded to the appellant, which was done in the following terms:
“In the end we hereby direct the respondent No. 1 to carry out the necessary repairs in the said TV within one month and half of the amount would be borne by the respondent while remaining half thereof would be borne by the complainant who would simultaneously return the Black & White TV. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.”
6. Since there is no cross appeal on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and he has also not chosen to put in appearance despite service, the findings of fact against them have achieved finality. The solitary surviving issue is the somewhat curious direction of the District Forum that despite its categoric findings in favour of the appellant-consumer, he would still be bound
