Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
SANDEEP BHALLA - Appellant
Versus
ASHOKA ELECTRONICS - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 381 of 2011 from Order dated 13.8.2010 in Appeal No. 09/895 of State Commission Delhi
Decided on : 02-08-2011
Party in Person, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The court emphasized the importance of timely reporting of defects and the limited scope of revisional powers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection - Defective Product - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) - Act Section List: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b); Sales of Goods Act, 1930 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim of manufacturing defects in the mobile phone and the respondent's liability for the quality of goods under the Sales of Goods Act, 1930. The court also considered the jurisdictional error in the impugned order and the abuse of process of law by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for selling a defective mobile phone and sought a refund of the purchase price along with damages and compensation. The District Forum and State Commission dismissed the complaint citing delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's delay in reporting the defects and the absence of a warranty period or complaint to the respondent after purchase rendered the complaint not maintainable. The court also noted the limited revisional powers and the abuse of process of law by the petitioner.
Issues: Delay in reporting defects, absence of warranty period, abuse of process of law
Ratio Decidendi: The delay and laches on the part of the petitioner rendered the complaint not maintainable. The court's revisional powers are limited and should only be exercised in the case of a prima facie jurisdictional error.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000, and the petitioner was directed to deposit the costs within four weeks.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Present revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (for short as "Act") has been filed against order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short as "State Commission"). By impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner against order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Central), Delhi (for short as "District Forum"), was dismissed.
2. Petitioner, who was complainant before the District Forum has pleaded that he purchased a mobile phone-cum pocket PC namely. Imate Pdal from respondent/OP on 7.4.2007 for Rs. 21,900. Later on, the petitioner found that there were serious manufacturing defects in the product, which constitute deficiency of goods. Respondent failed to disclose the address of the manufacturer and has also failed to provide after sale service.
3. Petitioner pleaded in his complaint about following defects in the product:
1. The device is not supported by the manufacturer's web site and upon entering the 1MEI No. it flashes a massage that it is not supported hence no update of its virus databse has been possible.
2. The quality of touch screen is extremely poor.
3. The top portion of touch screen is malfunctioning and to click at a point one has to click above the actual point to get desired result.
4. The exclusive use of style provided in the device in the right side area of the screen at the point closed and 'scroll bar and also at start button as developed ugly scars/marks.
5. The signal quality is very poor. The functioning of processor at the speed of 250 mhz is very slow as comparison to other devices.
6. The GPRS connectivity is impossible.
7. The WIFI connection provided in the device, is extremely slow.
8. The hand free speaker is too small and suffers from designing defects.
9. The promised talk time is 5 hours but the battery hardly last around 2-3 hours and again it has to be recharged.
10. The size of phone pad at touch screen is inadequately designed. The side button are placed unimaginatively and very often are pressed involuntarily while attempting to hold the device.
4. It is further stated that the device appears to have been launched in India as a Beta product to test it and gullible people have been persuaded to believe that it is an advanced product. It has been also pleaded by the petitioner that he has suffered monetary loss and mental agony, harassment in financial and hardship, etc. and has claimed the refund of the sale price of the product along with damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000 and a sum of Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges. He has also claimed compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 25,000.
5. Notice was issued to the respondent but it did not appear and was thus proceeded ex parte vide order dated 27.5.2008, passed by the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission and the same was dismissed by the impugned order.
7. Petitioner himself has appeared and has argued his case.
8. It is contended by the petitioner that State Commission as well as District Forum have erred in holding that in the absence of any written warranty issued by the vendor, the vendor is not liable for the quality of goods. This view is erroneous on the fact of the case. Further, it is argued that an express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by the Sales of Goods Act, 1930. Respondent has given a warranty purported to have been issued by the manufacturer but it is of no avail, as manufacturer has no presence in the country.
9. District Forum while dismissing the complaint, in its order held:
"It has come to the knowledge of the complainant that the product in question was not manufactured in India. It was launched in India. The complainant purchased it from the OP. The retail invoice does not contain any terms of warranty. Since the product has not been
