State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Daewoo Anchor Electronics Ltd. & ... vs Shri Kishor Uka Makwana & Anr. on 5 November, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/03/1870
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/10/2003 in Case
No. 39/2002 of District Nashik)
1. M/S. DAEWOO ANCHOR
ELECTRONICS LTD.
PORNIMA TOWERS (FIRST FLOOR) 31/1, SHANKAR SHETH ROAD, PUNE - 37
2. DAEWOO SERVICE
CENTRE, NASHIK
BEHIND VIDEOCON
PLAZA, CANADA
CORNER, NASHIK
NASHIK
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SHRI KISHOR UKA
MAKWANA
ROOM NO. 55, AMBEDKAR
COLONY, M.N.P. BLDG. NO.1, RAVIVAR PETH, NASHIK
2. RAJENDRA PARAKH
ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED
5, ZILLA PARISHAD
COMPLEX, NEAR MEHER SIGNAL, M.G. ROAD, NASHIK NEW ADD-480-1/2,ASHOK
STAMBH,NASHIK-422002
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Adv.Anita Marathe for the
appellant.
Both the respondents
absent.
ORDER
Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Honble Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 29/10/2003 in consumer complaint No.39/2002 passed by District Forum Nashik.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under :-
Respondent No.1/org. complainant had purchased a T.V. manufactured by opponent No.1/appellant No.1 from opponent No.3/who is a dealer of opponent No.1 for consideration `16,390/- on 02/05/2000. Opponent No.2 is a Service Centre of opponent No.1. Said T.V. became non-functional after 1 years.
Accordingly, respondent No.1/org. complainant had complained to org. opponent No.3, a dealer, who in turn instructed to approach org. opponent No.2/appellant No.2. However, opponent No.2/appellant No.2 had refused to repair the T.V. on the ground that warrantee period for the said T.V. has expired. Hence, he filed consumer complaint praying that opponents be ordered to repair the T.V. or to replace the T.V. and give guarantee of seven years.
Opponents be directed to pay compensation of `5,000/- with interest @ 21% p.a. and costs of `2,000/-.
3. Opponent Nos.1&2 had challenged the complaint by filing written version contending that warrantee period is one year and they have filed a copy of original warrantee certificate. They further contended that warrantee card which the complainant has filed along with the complaint is printed by opponent No.3 and hence, it is not valid and opponent Nos.1&2 are not responsible for deficiency in service as alleged by respondent No.1/org. complainant. Hence, they prayed that as there is no deficiency in service on their part, consumer complaint may please be dismissed along with costs of `5,000/-.
4. Opponent No.3 had filed written version and contended that he is a dealer and hence, there is no deficiency in service on his part. He further stated that for increasing the sale, opponent No.1 had given advertisement and the warrantee card printed by opponent No.3 has been printed at the instructions of opponent Nos.1&2 and hence, he is not responsible for the deficiency in service as alleged against him. Opponent No.3 prayed that complaint be dismissed as against him.
5. District Forum had gone through the complaint, written versions filed by opponent Nos.1&2, opponent No.3, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and the pleadings of their Advocates had came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and directed the opponents to repair the T.V. and to pay `5,000/- for mental and physical agony within a period of one month, failing which there will be interest @ 12% p.a. till realization of the amount.
6. Aggrieved by this order, org.
opponent Nos.1&2 had filed this appeal challenging the order.
7. We heard Mrs.Anita Marathe, Advocate for the appellants. Respondents remained absent though duly served.
8. Admittedly, respondent No.1/complainant had purchased a T.V. from respondent No.2/opponent No.3 on 02/05/2000 which is manufactured by opponent No.1/appellant No.1. There is no problem with the T.V. for a period of 1 years. Thereafter, T.V.
became non-functional and hence, respondent No.1/complainant approached the dealer for repairing the T.V.
Opponent No.3 directed respondent No.1/complainant to approach to the appellant No.2/opponent No.2 which is a Service Centre of opponent No.1/appellant No.1. It is also on record that appellant No.2 declined to repair the T.V. on the ground that warrantee period for T.V. is over.
The appellants along with their written version have filed a copy of original warranty card which is for the period of one year only. As against this, the warranty card filed by the complainant is the warranty card printed by opponent No.3/respondent No.2. There cannot be a seven years warranty period for a T.V. Mere say of the opponent No.3/respondent No.2 that he has printed the warranty card produced by the complainant/respondent No.1 at the instructions of the appellants cannot be relied upon. Respondents remained absent though duly served and it proves nexus between the complainant and the opponent No.3.
Learned District Forum should have given a proper weightage to the copy of original warranty card produced by the appellants. District Forum overlooking this original warranty card relied on the warranty card which has been printed by opponent No.3/respondent No.2 and arrived at a conclusion which cannot be sustained in the law. There is substance and merit in the appeal. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of appellants. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 29/10/2003 passed by the District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside as far as present appellants/org. opponent Nos.1&2 are concerned.
Consequently, complaint No.39/2002 stands dismissed as against present appellants/org. opponent Nos.1&2 only. It is made clear that the impugned order as against org. opponent No.3 is undisturbed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 5th November 2012.
[HON'BLE Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd