Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President;
Tmt. R. Vanaroja & Thiru Pon. Gunasekaran, Members
RAJA MOHAMMED—Appellant
versus
DHANABAGYAM & ANR.—Respondents
A.P. No. 74 of 2001—Decided on 24.10.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. V. Balaji, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. M. Baskar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: None.
Approaching the dealer during the warranty period with complaints is crucial in cases of alleged deficiency in service. Liability in cases of manufacturing defects lies with the manufacturer, not the dealer.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Consumer Dispute - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'deficiency in service', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'service' and Section 2(1)(r) defining 'unfair trade practice'. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the dealer during the warranty period with complaints and highlighted the liability of the manufacturer and dealer in cases of manufacturing defects.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent purchased a 'AKAI' Colour T.V. from the appellant. The T.V. developed audio and video problems, and the respondent sought replacement or refund. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the appellant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not approach the dealer during the warranty period with her complaint, and therefore, the alleged deficiency in service could not be invoked. The court set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: Whether there was any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of manufacturing defects, the claimant would be entitled to relief only against the manufacturer and not against the dealer. It emphasized the importance of approaching the dealer during the warranty period with complaints.
Final Decision: The appeal stands allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President—This appeal arises out of O.P. No. 57 of 1999 on the
file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pudukottai, under the following
circumstances.
The respondent/complainant purchased an “AKAI” Colour T.V. from the 1st opposite
party/appellant herein on 25.4.1998. The T.V. set had developed so many audio and video
problems. Hence, she lodged a complaint on 27.8.1999 to the first opposite party. Thereafter
she issued a lawyer’s notice under Ex. A3 for replacement of the T.V. with a new colour T.V.
As the first opposite party failed to reply, she filed the complaint for refund of the price
of the colour T.V.
2. The first opposite party filed his version and contended that he was not liable for
replacement or refund and that the complainant lodged the complaint for the first time,
after the expiry of one year warranty period that during the warranty period, she did not
make even a single complaint. The 2nd opposite party remained ex parte.
3. The complainant filed Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 and the first opposite party did not file any
document.
4. The District Forum by order dated 29.6.2000 allowed the complaint accepting the case of
the complainant and directed the opposite parties to take return of the TV set and replace
it with a new one or else pay a sum of Rs. 17,500 and take return of the TV set and pay
interest at 12% on Rs. 17,500 from the date of sale and a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards mental
agony and pain and Rs. 500 towards cost granting a month’s time to comply with the order.
5. The only point arising for consideration is: whether there was any deficiency in service
and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
6. It is the specific stand of the first opposite party/appellant that the complaint to the
first opposite party was made after the warranty period. Though this was disputed on the
side of the complainant, absolutely no material was placed on record before the District
Forum in support of his stand. Once the warranty is gone, the alleged deficiency in service
cannot be invoked. Another stand taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in a
case like this, only the manufacturer would be liable and not the dealer and he being the
dealer, the District Forum ought to have exonerated him and confined the order only to the
2nd opposite party. Though the learned Counsel for the complainant asserted that the
complainant had indeed during the warranty period orally and in writing approached the
dealer, was not able to substantiate the same with any documentary evidence. It has,
therefore, to be held that the complainant did not approach the dealer with the complaint
during the warranty period.
7. As to the question whether the dealer is liable, some of the decisions relied on by the
Counsel are as follows:
(1) Lakshmi Electro Control & Automation v. Fabionix India Pvt. Ltd., IV (2005) CPJ 585=2005
T.N.C.R. 150-152 (SCDRC). In that case, an A.C. Servo Amplifier was supplied by the opposite
party No. 1 (Dealer) before the Forum, manufactured by the opposite party No. 2 was
defective. It was held by the State Commission that both the manufacturer and the dealer
were jointly liable following the principle laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) AC
562 (HL), though there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the
manufacturer.
(2) Western India State Motors v. Sobhagmal Meena & Others, I (1991) CPJ 44 (NC).
In that case, it was held by the National Commission that in the case of claim for
replacement or for damages on account of manufacturing defect, the award of relief could be
only against the manufacturer.
(3) Aruna Singhal v. Texla Television, Jupiter Radio, II (1991) CPJ 498.
In that case, following the decision of the National Commission in Western India State
Motors v. Sobhagmal Meena (supra), it was held that the manufacturer alone was liable and
not the dealer. It was also a case where a TV set purchased was found to be defective, but
within
