CHAIRMAN, KONARK TELEVISION LTD. vs P.C.SAHOO

THE appellant have filed the aforesaid appeal against the order passed by the Dist. C.D.R. Forum, Angul in CD. Case No. 227 of 1992 disposed of by a common judgment along with CD. Case No. 28 of 1993 for which this CD. Appeal No. 166 of 1994 has been filed. THE Forum below directed the appellants to replace the T.V. sold to the respondents and further directed to pay Rs. 800.00 as compensation and Rs. 500.00 as cost to each of the petitioners for defective Remote Controls. THE complainant moved the M/s. Konark T.V. Ltd. for settlement of their claims but nothing substantial could be accomplished for a pretty long time. Alleging deficiency in service on their part, the respondents moved the District Forum.

THE case of the petitioner in a nut-shell is that they were swayed away by the captivating advertisement by the opposite party-Konark T.V. for their products "Konark Galaxy/Eyeteak including Galaxy plus which sets they had purchased. It is said that the sets developed defects from the very beginning and soon after their purchase, they started running to the service centre of the opposite party at Nalco Nagar, Angul and they were issued estimates for repair. THE main defects in the sets were said to be trippler, I.C and Tuner which were of Germany make. Being vexed, they represented to the Chairman of the firm who gave reply that they are trying their best to rectify the defects and convert the sets to manual work. In the meanwhile opposite party also stopped manufacturing of the said set. THE petitioners say that they were so much vexed that they wanted to change their sets for the like model of the Konark product to which the management agreed in principle and wanted to get it confirmed from the Board which was not done for which the petitioners have filed the cases with a prayer to direct the opposite party to replace their sets with an equivalent model of its product at their cost and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 to each and Rs. 500.00 towards the cost of litigation. THE learned Counsel of the appellant on behalf of M/s. Konark T.V. Co. Ltd., a Government of Orissa Undertaking appeared, filed return and argued strenuously submitting therein that : (A) THE application is not tenable as the complainants are not consumers. As such they cannot file the complaint case in bulk. (B) For that after expiry of warranty period the appellant is no way liable to rectify the defects and as such the order of the learned District Forum is misconception of law. (C) THE applicability of the amended provisions of 1993 could only be prospective and not retrospective. (D) When the District Forum could not find out any deficiency in service in the T.V. sets, the ordering to replace the Remote Control system or to pay Rs. 800/ with the cost of Rs. 500/ to each of the respondents/ complainants (alongwith 34 others) cannot be said to be just and valid. As such the order of the District Consumer Forum, Angul is otherwise bad, illegal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned Counsel at length and have perused the evidence on record. It was strenuously contended by learned Counsel Mr. R.K. Patnaik on behalf of the respondent that there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.

Further the learned Counsel on behalf of the Konark T.V submitted in his written version that the application is not tenable as the complainants are not consumer. This stand cannot be accepted by us for the reason that in a contract for effecting repairs or replacement of an article between the dealer/manufacturer or their authorised service centre on one hand and the complainant-buyers of the article on the other are the principal beneficiary under the contract and is a consumer, entitled to file complaint petition. As far as complainant is concerned, such consideration for the services stand included in the total price of the T.V. purchased and thus the complainant being a consumer, is entitled to claim relief against the appellant as well.

SECONDLY, soon after the purchase, the T.V. developed defects and the complainants were entitled to get the spare parts free as far as defective parts of the T.V. are concerned which occurred even before and after the expiry period of warranty. Materials on record show that the repair being carried during the warranty period very often. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As such the result would be the complainant was entitled to get total free service by replacement cf the defective parts of the T.V. without payment of repair charges. A further question for consideration is as to whether on account of negligent act of opposite party, the appellant, how much compensation should be granted to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that a grant of Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation will be highly excessive, disproportionate with the claim. There is merit in the contention of the learned Counsel of the opposite party because such a cause cannot be weighed in scales to determine compensation by a fixed formula. That M/s. Konark T.V. Ltd. (A Government of Orissa Undertaking) has already been closed sine die and awarding compensation which cannot be recovered will serve no purpose.

AFTER careful consideration, we decided that the net result, would be that this appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. We direct tp the appellant (M/s. Konark T.V. Ltd.) to forthwith deliver back the repaired T.V. set along with Remote in perfect working condition without charging anything for repairs and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. Let these directions be complied within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order Appeal allowed partly. Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President-I agree. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Appeal partly allowed.