BHABANI SANKAR DAS vs AMARENDRA DAS

DEFECT in goods and deficiency is service are the grievances of the complainant.

CASE of complainant is that on the promised assurance of after sales service advertised in papers and to encourage an Oriya enterpienuer, he purchased a colour T.V. set on 21.3.1985 from Surya Investment and Transport Pvt. Ltd. On payment of Rs. 6,600/- towards cost of the set. He did not use the set from June, 1986 or June 1988 on account of his posting in far off places. The set was put to use from July, 1988 to January, 1990whenthere was breakdown in the set. On 25.1.1990 he handed over the set to uthorized service uthor at Cuttack where he was promised to get back the set on 1.2.1990 after repair. On approach by complainant on 1.2.1990 and repeatedly thereafter, he was intimated at the service uthor that it is unable to repair the set and striking off the date of delivery mentioned in red ink ''uncertain''. Lastly showing a letter of regret from the Chief Service Engineer, the service uthor required the complainant to take back the T.V. set unrepaired with the letter. However, complainant did not accept the request and let the T.V. set with the uthorized dealer. On 3.3.1990, complainant addressed a letter to Hon''ble Chief Justice, Orissa High Court with copy to Opposite Party. Opposite Party had no regard for the registered letter. On these assertions, complainant prays for directing repair of the T.V. set or in case of failure to replace it by a new one and to compensate for harassment to family members due to loss of entertainment since they have missed the last 12 episodes of Mahabharat and many others for a span of one year. It is also prayed to direct Opposite Party to issue a press note in all heading newspapers telling the future buyers that their sets sold cannot be repaired. Amount of loss and compensation had been assessed at Rs. 1,10,000/-. On receipt of copy of the complaint, Opposite Party state his case asserting that complainant purchased the T.V. set with one year warranty valid upto 21.3.1986. It was a completely imported T.V. set, whose kits were manufactured/supplied by M/s. For East United Electronics Ltd., Hongkong. When complainant made a grievance of low brightness on 25.1.1990, the T.V. set was received for repair by the authorised service centre at Cuttack. At the time of investigation of the defects it was noticed that Extra High Tension Transfer Union as EHT has lost its utility as a matter of regular wear and tear and requires replacement. Prior to it on 22.11.1988 Opposite Party had made a request to the supplier at Hongkong by telex message to supply several spare parts for sales and service wherein 15 numbers of EHT were also required. On 30.11.1988 supplier reported back the spares available with price and cost and intimated that other spares are not available. Opposite Party has not been able to find any indegenous part as substitute of the said EHT and the T.V. set being an absolute model, no replacement of spare parts can be made now. This was intimated to complainant on 12.4.1990 and it was intimated that on account of long use the EHT has become defunct. It is further asserted that every purchaser of "T.V 15" was made known at the time of purchase that entire kits of the set are imported.

It is not in dispute that the T.V. set purchased indicated defect after 4 years 10 months of purchase. Allegation of defect in goods purchased for use comes within the scope of enquiry of a redressal agency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Defect has been defined in Section 2(f) as follows: "Defect" means any fault, imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. Trader as defined in Section 2(q) includes the manufacturer. Opposite Party is manufacturer as defined in Section 2 (j) means a person who assembles parts of the goods made or manufactured by others. Therefore, opposite party who claims to have assembled the imported parts of the T.V. set is a trader. There is no law brought to our notice requiring the quantity etc. of a coloured T.V. set. It is also not the case of complainant that there was any fault, imperfection or short coming in the T.V. as claimed by the trader. Thus, prayer for repair or replacement of the T.V. set cannot be allowed which a redressal agency is authorised to direct the opposite party under Section 14(1) of the Act in case of defect in goods. If the trader would have claimed that the EHT shall not become defective within five years, it would have been a defect. This is not the case of complainant.

CASE of complainant is that Opposite Party had undertaken to repair the T.V. set as after sales service. Therefore, refusal to repair is a deficiency in service. There cannot be any doubt that after sales service is a service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) which means service of any description. Complainant possessing a T.V. set is a potential user of such service which is to be made available to him in authorised service centres. On handing over the T.V. set for repair, he hired the services with promise to pay the repair charges which is the consideration. Service also included supply of the spare parts to be required for the price thereof. Complainant is thus, a consumer in respect of the service of repairing which is after sales service. Opposite Party had not fixed any time limit for service of a T.V. set after its purchase. It can thus be held that it has undertaken to perform the after sales service of all its T.V. sets when ever they are presented irrespective of its make. Since it could not render the service it is a shortcoming in the service undertaken to be performed and is thus, a deficiency in service.

COMPLAINANT shall be entitled to a direction to the opposite party from the redressal agency where deficiency in service is out come of negligence of the opposite party, hi this case no fact has been brought to record wherefrom inference of negligence of opposite party can be drawn. Opposite Party has explained that it is not manufacturer of the spare parts which are to be imported from outside. Long before the defect, opposite party placed orders for supply of 15 numbers of EHT, supplier expressed that the said spare part is not available. When a spare part is not available on account of non production thereof, it cannot be said that Opposite Party has been negligence in repairing the T.V. set. It has no control over the production. Accordingly, the only direction for deficiency in service for payment of compensation for suffering of the complainant in not possible to be given since there is no negligence of opposite party. In result, complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.