Back
2004(2) CPR 152
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
A. Raman, President; Tmt. R. Vanaroja, Member.
MIRC Electronics Ltd. -Appellant
versus
S. Dasarathan and another –Respondent/ Complainant
A.P. Nos. 642 & 653/99
Decided on 12-2-2004
Held: The contention of the first opposite party that he is not liable cannot be accepted. The seller as well as the manufacturer are liable. When there is a defect in a goods sold to a consumer, consumer can proceed against the seller as well as the manufacturer of the goods and the seller cannot evade from his liability for the defects merely by stating that the manufacturer alone is liable. Therefore, at the outset, the contention of the first opposite party who is the Appellant in A.P. No. 653/99 that he being the dealer and seller is not liable cannot be accepted at all.(Para 6)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in service - Colour T.V. not functioning properly - Replaced - Even replaced T.V. not working properly - District Forum directed return of price - Whether correct?(Yes).
Held: Now coming to the fact it is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a T.V. Set on 4-1-1997 and that it did not function properly with the result that it was replaced by the second opposite party. The replaced set was also not functioning well and again it was replaced and again there was a replacement. Thus, thrice replacement has been done by the opposite party. This only shows a manufacturing defect. Otherwise neither a dealer nor a manufacturer would agree to replace the set. Even the set that was replaced last did not function properly and it was left with the opposite parties for carrying out necessary repairs. That is also not disputed. Thus this is a case where there is glaring deficiency in service. Unless it be that the T.V. sets sold or replaced were not working properly and had some defects, the opposite parties would not have come forward to replace them more so in such quick succession. As a gesture of goodwill they did it, it cannot be accepted because such a goodwill is very rarely exhibited by the other manufacturers or the dealers. Even according to the opposite parties that the replacements were made within the warranty period. All these only emphasize the fact that the goods sold and the goods that were replaced were either substandard or had some manufacturing defect. A consumer who has purchased a goods, here a T.V. set, could not enjoy the benefit of its purchase owning to the inherent defect the set sold to him had. Thus it is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence it follows that the opposite parties are liable either to replace the set or repay the amount. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the view taken by the Lower Forum. Consequently we find no merits in this Appeal.(Para 7)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
A. Raman, President.- These two appeals are preferred by the opposite parties. The second opposite party is the authorized dealer of ONIDA Colour T.V. The complainant purchased a ONIDA Colour T.V. by paying a sum of Rs.21,000/- from the first opposite party. As the said colour T.V. was not in a working condition, a complaint was made to the first opposite party who advised the complainant to take it up with the Service Centre of the second opposite party. Therefore on 6-1-1997 , the complainant lodged a complaint with the second opposite party and the Service Centre of the second opposite party visited the premises and inspected the T.V. set and assured the complainant that this mistake will not recur. But again some problems developed and the picture was unclear and blurred. Therefore, the complainant again made a complaint with the second opposite party and the second opposite party replaced the defective set on 12-1-1997. Even the replaced set was not in a good condition. Hence on 12-3-1997, the complainant made another complaint to the opposite party. After several repeated complaints, the second opposite party replaced the defective set with another set in the month of June, 1997. In the said replaced set in June, 1997 also, there was a defect. The sound system was not working and there was a constant humming sound. Therefore, frustrated by the action of the second opposite party, the complainant made several phone calls and handed over the set to the second opposite party on 8-11-1997 demanding replacement. But till date it has not been replaced and the set is now lying with the second opposite party. Therefore, the complainant sought refund of the invoice amount of Rs.21,000/- since all the three sets supplied by the second opposite party were defective. To this also there was no response or reply. Therefore, the complainant sent a notice through his counsel and sought for a refund of Rs.21,000/ - alongwith a sum of Rs.25,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony and hardship. Meanwhile, the second opposite party delivered a letter on 25-11-1997 in which the second opposite party had refused to refund the amount and requested the complainant to come for a discussion. The complainant made a personal visit to the second opposite party's office and the second opposite party then requested the complainant to reconsider his claim or refund agreeing to replace a fresh set. However, the complainant was not agreeable to this suggestion. Hence, the complainant has chosen to file this complaint claiming a refund of Rs.21,000/ - being the cost of T.V. Set alongwith a sum of Rs.25,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and frustration.
2. The first opposite party pleaded as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The first opposite party is not a manufacturer. He is only 8dealer and the complainant is aware of the same. Therefore, he is not liable for any alleged manufacturing defect and that the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the dealing with the second opposite party are not known to the first opposite party. The complainant never approached the first opposite party. The complainant did not issue any notice to the first opposite party. The first opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.
3. The second opposite pleaded as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service. The allegations that the ONIDA KY 2 model T.V. Set purchased by the complainant was not in a good condition is denied. According to the complainant, the set was replaced on 12-1-1997. The allegation of colour patches is a normal problem. It was due to voltage fluctuations. The TV being an assembly of electronic components is subject to various parameters. It is stated that the third replacement set was defective and that too has been attended to by the second opposite
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
