At, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.K. BASU
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. S. MAJUMDER
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. D. KARFORMA
For the Appearing Advocates: - - - - -.
M.K. Basu, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the Darjeeling District Consumer Forum in Consumer Case No. 57/S/2003. Under this judgment the learned Forum allowed the case of the complainant on contest against O.Ps. 1, 2 and 3 and dismissed the case against the O.P. 4 ex parte and directed that the T.V. set in dispute of the complainant to be replaced by a new one by the O.Ps. 1, 2 and 3 failing which the complainant would be entitled to get the same by way of execution.
2. Being aggrieved by this order the O.Ps. 1, 2 and 3 have preferred the present appeal challenging the said order as bad in law and unsustainable. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a T.V. set of Samsung Multimedia India Pvt. Ltd. at a price of Rs. 35,000/- (thirty five thousand) from the shop of the O.P. 4 styled as M/s. Radio Syndicate, Siliguri. 4 years after purchase of the T.V. problems started to crop up and it was found that the T.V. set was not functioning properly. Accordingly it was referred to the O.Ps. The O.Ps. responded to the calls and repaired the T.V. set every time the call was given but ultimately on 6th June the T.V. set again went out of order and reference was made again to the O.Ps. for repair of the same. The O.Ps. then took the T.V. set to their centre for examination and repair. Ultimately on 29th June they brought the T.V. set back to the house of the complainant and installed it there after repairs. The complainant filed this complaint on the next date that is 30th June on the impression that the repair had been done somehow and since there was a major break down in the total working of the set he did not think that it would render satisfactory service in future. Thus being apprehensive that the T.V. set will not render satisfactory service in future irrespective of how it was functioning at that point of time the complaint was lodged.
3. At the outset we cannot but point out here lying the fallacy from which the complaint is suffering. On 29th June the set was reinstalled by the O.Ps. after getting it repaired and at that point of time, as it appears from the trend of the allegations levelled in the complaint, the T.V. was functioning properly but since the date of expiry of warranty period was very near namely 2nd July, 2003, the complainant did not consider it prudent to wait any longer and then and there filed the complaint claiming replacement of the same by a new one. It has been pointed out by Mr. Nayek, the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the warranty does not contain any provision for replacement of a T.V. set. Within a period of 5 years the O.Ps. were under an obligation to render service of repair whenever so required and accordingly they never failed to render such service as soon as the complainant gave a call. On 29th June also they reinstalled the T.V. set in the house of the complainant after getting it thoroughly repaired and there is not a single scrap of paper filed by the complainant to show that they had any grievance after such repair was effected by the O.Ps. to the T.V. set in dispute. But, for reasons best known to them they lodged a complaint without even waiting for a single day more to verify whether the repaired T.V. set was really failing to properly function. Further, from the reports of the mechanical experts sent by the O.Ps. to the house of the complainant to effect the repair in the T.V. set on being called is that they found the T.V. set not being properly handled and they detected water within the P.C.B. board and further the safety precautions as mentioned in the manual-cum-warranty card which were required to be taken by the user of the T.V. set had not been followed by the complainant. Against this the complainant remains totally silent and has not raised a word of protest.
4. After examining the warranty card we also do not find any trace of any undertaking to the effect that in any case a new T.V. set will be handed over in place of the old one particularly when there is no iota of complaint against the disputed T.V. set after it was thoroughly repaired by the O.Ps. and reinstalled in the house of the complainant on 29th June, 2003. Therefore, we find the contention of Mr. Nayek justified that being apprehensive that the T.V. set had almost covered the warranty period which was going to expire on the next date, they in order to make some wrongful gain filed this complaint with a prayer for replacement for old one by a new T.V. set. In our considered opinion the findings arrived at by the Forum were erroneous. The materials on record rather show that the T.V. set after being repaired and being installed on 29th June, 2003 was working properly and, therefore, n
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
o deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. on that date could arise and hence from that point of view the complaint suffers from an infirmity which can hardly be surmounted. 5. Regard being had all the reasons discussed above we are constrained to hold that the findings of the Forum are not justified and the order suffers from illegality. Accordingly the impugned judgment be set aside and the appeal be allowed on contest. However, considering the circumstances we do not impose any cost. Appeal allowed.