Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Honble Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President;
Mr. Biswanath Rath & Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Members
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KONARK TELEVISION LTD.—Appellant
versus
MADHUSUDAN PARIDA—Respondent
Consumer Disputes Appeal No. 179 of 1992—Decided on 4.10.1996
For the Appellants :Mr. G. Rath, Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Mr. A.K. Patnaik & Mr. J.C. Sahoo, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Patnaik, Mr. S.C. Puspalak, Mr. T.K. Sahoo, Mr. C.B. Behera, Mr. S.S. Jena, Mr. P.K. Nayak, Mr. A.N. Samantray & Mr. S.C. Beura, Advocates.
A consumer is not entitled to a refund of repair charges paid for a defect that occurred beyond the warranty period and was not due to a manufacturing defect. Compensation cannot be awarded for delay in repair when there is no evidence of such delay.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SALE OF GOODS ACT - SECTION 12, 14, 15 - DEFECTIVE GOODS - REPAIR CHARGES - COMPENSATION - The court held that the consumer is not entitled to a refund of repair charges paid for a defect that occurred beyond the warranty period and was not due to a manufacturing defect. The court also held that compensation cannot be awarded for delay in repair when there is no evidence of such delay.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a T.V. set from the appellant on 28.12.1988. The T.V. set developed defects almost from the date of purchase and the respondent had to incur heavy expenditure for its repair. The respondent brought the T.V. set to the appellant for repair on 14.10.90 and paid Rs. 907.68p. for the repair. The T.V. set again developed defects and the respondent brought it to the appellant on 21.6.91. The respondent filed a case before the District Forum for replacement of the T.V. set or the defective parts and compensation for harassment and mental agony.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum directed the appellant to refund the repair charges realized from the respondent for the repair effected on 14.10.90 and also awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the State Commission.
Issues: 1. Whether the consumer is entitled to a refund of repair charges paid for a defect that occurred beyond the warranty period and was not due to a manufacturing defect? 2. Whether compensation can be awarded for delay in repair when there is no evidence of such delay?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the consumer is not entitled to a refund of repair charges paid for a defect that occurred beyond the warranty period and was not due to a manufacturing defect. The court reasoned that the consumer had accepted the liability to pay for the repair and in fact paid the demanded amount and used the T.V. for one year more, and therefore the grievance in that respect had become stale and should not be re-opened. 2. The court held that compensation cannot be awarded for delay in repair when there is no evidence of such delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order directing the appellant to refund the repair charges realized from the respondent in the year 1990 and also the direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. However, the court clarified that the appellant shall not realize any repair charges for the repair effected in the year 1991, which according to the appellant was a minor defect.
Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President—The opposite party in C.D. Case No. 64 of 1991 before the District Forum, Khurdha, Bhubaneswar is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case for the defect in goods and deficiency in service in respect of a T.V. set which he had purchased on 28.12.1988 from the present appellant. According to the complainant-respondent, it developed defects almost from the date of purchase and he had to incur heavy expenditure for its repair. His case is that the T.V. set was brought to the present appellant on 14.10.90 for its repair and it was repaired on payment of Rs. 907.68p. though after repair the T.V. set gave proper service, it developed defects again for which it was again brought to the appellant on 21.6.91. He prayed for replacement of the T.V. set or the defective parts and he is also entitled to compensation for the harassment and mental agony.
2. The present appellant as opposite party filed a show cause denying their liability. Their stand was that the T.V. set was perfectly in good working condition on the date of its sale and admittedly for two years thereafter as the same was brought for repair on 14.10.90 after the expiry of the warranty period. It was also stated in the show cause that since the T.V. was brought for repair by change of appropriate parts which had developed defects beyond the warranty period, the complainant was liable to pay the cost of repair which he did pay. They have further alleged that the T.V. set thereafter also functioned properly for one year more when the defect again cropped up. Before bringing the T.V. for repair to the present appellant, the complainant filed this case before the District Forum and without knowing that the case had already been instituted by the complainant the present appellant repaired the T.V. set. The second repair effected was a minor defect according to the present appellant.
3. The District Forum after going through the case of both parties and after giving opportunity to both parties to be heard concluded that the defect appearing in the T.V. set on 14.10.90 though beyond the warranty period was within the normal life span of a T.V. set and therefore it was not proper on the part of the present appellant to realise money from the respondent for the repair then effected. It also found that since the T.V. set is repeatedly developing defects, it is the duty of the present appellant to set it right. The District Forum directed that the amount of Rs. 907.68p. realised from the present respondent for the repair effected on 14.10.90 should be refunded to him within a month from the date of the order and in the event of his failure to do so he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.10.90 till the date of payment. The respondent was also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this appeal.
4. It has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the T.V. set which was sold to the respondent was not a defective one inasmuch as it did not give any trouble whatsoever till 14.10.90. On 14.10.90 when the T.V. set was brought to the appellant for repair the same being beyond the warranty period, the Company was justified in realising the cost of the parts after giving appropriate rebate from the respondent for repair of the TV. According to him by the said repair, the T.V. set performed all right and till the institution of this proceeding, no defect whatsoever was brought to the notice of the Company. It is only after the institution of the proceeding that the T.V. set was brought to the appellant at a point of time when notice on the opposite party had not been served. Since the T.V. set was again received for repair it was found that the defect developed was a minor one. He, therefore/ submits that there was no justification for a direction to the present appellant for refund of the money realised from the respondent as repair charges
