Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Chandrashekaraiah, President and Rama Ananth, Member
RADIO HOUSE - Appellant
Versus
SANDEEP GHOSH - Respondent
Appeal No. 2106 of 2007
Decided on : 22-02-2008
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Protection - Defective Products
Act Referred
Headnote
Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 12, Section 14(1)(d) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the definition of 'deficiency in service' under Section 2(1)(g), 'complaint' under Section 2(1)(o), 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(r), the powers of the District Forum under Section 12, and the redressal mechanisms under Section 14(1)(d). The court emphasized the consumer's right to seek redressal for defective products and the obligation of the seller to rectify the defects or provide a refund.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a 'Sony Network Walkman MP-3' from the O.P. and experienced problems with it. The O.P. failed to rectify the defect and used force against the complainant, leading to a complaint alleging 'Deficiency in service'.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum allowed the complaint in part, directing the O.P. to replace the defective Walkman or refund the amount with cost. The court upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal by the O.P.
Issues: The key issue was whether there was 'deficiency in service' on the part of the O.P. in relation to the defective Walkman purchased by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the O.P. failed to rectify the defect in the Walkman and did not provide evidence to support their defense. As a result, the District Forum's decision to direct the O.P. to replace the Walkman or refund the amount was upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
M/s. M.R. Ananthakrishnamurthy and Associates, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mrs. K.N. Nagarathna, Advocate, for the Respondent
ORDER
Chandrashekaraiah, President - This appeal is by the appellant/opposite party (for short, "O.P.") challenging the Order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalore Urban, in Complaint No. 1245/2007, by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant in part.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he purchased a "Sony Network Walkman MP-3" (for short, "Walkman") from the O.P. on 7.4.2007 by paying a sum of Rs. 5,990. The period of warranty in respect of the Walkman is one year. The case of the complainant is that from the day one he experienced some problem with the said Walkman, as it was not working properly. Immediately thereafter he contacted the O.P. from whom he purchased the Walkman to rectify the defect and handed over the Walkman to the O.P. on 2.6.2007. According to the complainant, when he approached the O.P. with the defect in the Walkman, the O.P. used force and threatened the complainant with dire consequences, which made the complainant to lodge a complaint against the O.P. in Ashoknagar Police Station. As the O.P. did not come forward to make the Walkman defect-free, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging "Deficiency in service" on the part of the O.P.
3. The O.P. on service of Notice issued by the District Forum filed version denying the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. According to the O.P., since the complainant was not operating the Walkman as per the "User's Manual", he is facing problems in using the Walkman. The further case of the O.P. is that the complainant used highhandedness against the O.P. which made the O.P. to lodge a complaint against the complainant. The O.P. in its version has denied the averment of the complainant that the O.P. has not re-delivered the Walkman to the complainant.
4. On the above said pleadings of the parties, the District Forum has raised three points and answered the points in favour of the complainant. This order is under challenge by the O.P. in this appeal.
5. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the District Forum is right in allowing the complaint of the complainant in part.
6. The fact that the complainant has purchased the Walkman from the O.P. by paying a sum of Rs. 5,990 is not disputed. According to the complainant, since there was a problem in the Walkman due to the defect in the manufacture, he approached the O.P. but the O.P. did not got the defect removed and, on the other hand, the O.P. used force and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. This has made the complainant to file a complaint against the O.P. before the Ashoknagar Police Station but, ultimately, the Police did not take any action on his complaint. From the impugned order, it is seen that the O.P. has also given a counter complaint against the complainant in the Ashoknagar Police Station and made the complainant to offer an unconditional apology. If really the complainant had committed any criminal act by using any force against the O.P., there was no reason for the Police to take apology letter from the complainant instead of registering a case after investigation. In the case on hand, no such steps were taken by the Police either on the complaint of the complainant or on the complaint of the O.P.
7. According to the complainant, the Walkman purchased by him was not working properly as there was some problem in the Walkman. The defence of the O.P. is that when the complainant has handed over the Walkman, the O.P. has sent the Walkman to Sony Service Centre to examine whether there was any problem in the Walkman. According to the O.P., the Sony Service Centre has got the Walkman tested and has confirmed that there is no defect in the manufacture of the Walkman. The very fact that the O.P. had sent the Walkman to Sony Service Centre for testing itself speaks of the fact that there was some problem in the Walkman; otherwise the
