B.P.L LTD. vs MRS.S.REGINA CHRISTOBEL

THESE Revision Petitions arise out of an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in Appeal No. 615/94. That appeal had been filed by the present Respondent No. 1 in Revision Petition No. 55/95 and Petitioner in R.P. No. 230/95. She was complainant in the complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagercoil. That complaint had been filed against Sunder Home Appliances who was arrayed as opposite party No. 1 and is now respondent No. 2 in R.P. No. 55/95 and respondent No. 1 in R.P. No. 230/95 and against BPL. Ltd, who had been arrayed as opposite party No. 2 and now respondent No. 2 in R.P. No. 230/95 and petitioner in R.P. No. 55/95.

BY the impugned order the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant, Mrs. S. Regina Christobel and while setting aside the order of the District Forum directed BPL Ltd. to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 16,650/- and take back the T.V. No compensation or costs were awarded to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, BPL Ltd. has filed Revision Petition No. 55/95 for setting aside the order of the State Commission, while the complainant has filed Revision Petition No. 230/95 for compensation etc. The facts in brief as gathered from the record are that the complainant had purchased a Television set manufactured by BPL Ltd. on 25th June, 1992 from the dealer, Sunder Home Appliances. It did not function well from the very beginning. The complainant issued a notice. Thereupon a Senior Officer of BPL Ltd. examined the television and agreed to give a new television set of better model, if the complainant paid a further sum of Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 3,000/- by D.D. to Sunder Home Appliances. BPL Ltd. sent a EBR Television on 30th September, 1992. A mechanic of the dealer took away the old television set and installed the new television set on 4th November, 1992. According to the complainant the new television set was also defective. The complainant approached the dealer but without any result. She sent a letter to the opposite parties on 28th November, 1992 describing the defects and asking for the refund of price of Rs. 16,650/-. The complainant further alleged that the agent of BPL Ltd. came and checked the new set and he admitted the defects and placed the set under observation on 19th December, 1992. However, no further steps were taken by the opposite parties to rectify the said defects. The complainant was put to mental agony and loss. She sent a letter on 8th January, 1993 to BPL Ltd. stating the defects to which the latter sent an unwarranted reply. According to the complainant, on accounts of the defects in the television and deficiency in services and negligence exhibited by the opposite parties, she has sustained a loss of Rs. 16,650/- i.e. cost of television and Rs. 40,000/- for mental agony and physical hardship. She also claimed Rs. 1,000/- as monetary expenses. Thus, she filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 57,650/-.

THE complaint was contested by both the opposite parties by filing separate counters. The opposite party No. 1 stated that on receiving notice of the complainant dated 1st September, 1992 discussions were held by the officers of the 2nd opposite party with the complainant and as a very special case it was agreed to exchange her television set for another television set on payment of the cost difference. The new television set was installed at the premises of the complainant in November, 1992. The complainant again sent a complaint regarding the replaced set. A technician from the authorised service centre checked the television set on 19th December, 1992 and found the set to be O.K., but in order to find out the alleged defects the set was kept under observation. On observation also no defects were found. Thereafter on receipt of the notice from the complainant, 2nd opposite party informed the complainant by letter dated 23rd January, 1993 that the so-called defects were mainly due to improper tuning.

THE 2nd opposite party also denied the allegations made against them and supported the contentions of the first opposite party. After considering the record and hearing the parties the District Forum found that there was no defect in the television set supplied to the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor they were guilty of any unfair trade practice. The District Forum was of the opinion that this was a fit case in which compensatory costs should be ordered to be paid to the opposite parties but it was not being ordered because the complainant was an old lady.

WE may mention here that the television set in question was brought twice before the District Forum and it was set for operation on both the occasions alongwith some new television set brought by the opposite parties. Both the television sets were operated and their functioning was demonstrated. But functioned in the same manner. The picture and sound was clear when Madras Station was tuned. However, when Trivandrum Station was tuned, occasionally the colour of the picture failed and appeared as black and white. It was similar in the new television set brought by the opposite parties. The District Forum was of the opinion that the defect was due to defect in the transmission and thus there was no defect in the television set supplied to the complainant.

FEELING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. That Commission has remarked that the new television set brought by the opposite parties and the television set of the complainant were tested before the District Forum and both functioned equally defective, and therefore it ought to have allowed the complainant''s claim. It was further remarked that the District Forum did not call for the opinions from the Technical Experts from the Television and Microware Transmission Centres and declared that the defect in the television tested before it were due to defective transmission but there was no material before it for arriving at that finding. It further remarked that the Electronics Experts well-versed in transmission technology could testify about the transmission and the District Forum did not get the same done. The State Commission accepted the appeal and directed the second opposite party to refund to the complainant Rs. 16,650/- and take back the television set. We have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties. We are of the opinion that the State Commission feel in error while holding that it was not known whether the television set brought by the opposite parties for comparison was free from any defect and hence on the basis of the television set brought by the opposite parties it cannot be said that the new television set supplied to the complainant was free from any defect and occasional colour change was due to transmission defect. We are unable to uphold the reasoning of the State Commission that the new television set brought by the opposite parties before the District Forum was defective. The complainant has not examined any Expert to show that there was some defect in the television set and not in the transmission from Trivandrum Station. The complainant ought to have shown that in the television sets manufacture by other companies the transmission from Trivandrum Transmission Centre was clearly received on their television sets at that place. Therefore, only on the ground that in the two television sets which were brought before the District Forum sometimes the picture turned black and white it cannot be said that the two television sets operated before the District Forum were defective.

IN the light of the above discussions it, is held that the State Commission has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity. We accordingly accept the Revision Petition No. 55 of 1995 and while setting aside the order of the State Commission restore that of the District Forum. Revision Petition No. 230/95 automatically fails and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case we order that the parties shall beair their respective costs.