CHANDUBHAI D. CHHAG vs GOPALAN K.P.

BOTH these appeals arise out of the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amreli directing the appellants to pay the amount of Rs. 12,300/- with 12% interest from 11.12.89 to the date of realisation, Rs. 3000/- for the compensation for mental torture etc. and Rs. 300/- for the cost of the complaint, holding that the appellants failed to rectify the defects in the Optonica TV purchased by the respondent No. 1 Gopalan K.P. from the appellant Chandubhai D. Chhag (appellant at Appeal No. 58/ 93) and produced by the appellant No. 2 in Appeal No. 74/93 and distributed through the appellant No. 1 in the same appeal. Parties will be referred by their original position in complaint.

THE complainant Gopalan K.P. purchased the Optonica TV from the opponent No. 1-Chandubhai Chhag, the proprietor of Music Centre, Kodinar, as he was attracted by the advertisement about the sharp pictures and sound system in the TV. Opponent No. 1 is the dealer of said TV which are produced by the opposite party No. 3. THE complainant purchased 20" screen Colour TV set on 11.12.89 for Rs. 12,300/- from the opponent No. 1-Music Centre. THE amount of Rs. 6000/-was immediately paid on purchase and remaining amount was paid by monthly instalments and accordingly the full price of the TV set was paid. According to the complainant the TV set worked properly for six months but after that the TV did not give clear picture and sound and many other defects were found. THE complaint was made to the opponent No. 1 in September 1990 but he did not pay attention immediately and was told to wait till the technician came from Ahmedabad. THE complainant then complained to the Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Kodinar on 6.9.90 and they also entered into correspondence with opponent No. 1 on behalf of the complainant. THE technician repaired the TV on 22.9.90. THE complainant again complained about defect in the TV in December 90. On 27.12.90 the technician checked the TV but could not repair it and told that the TV kit will be required to be taken to Ahmedabad. After that the technician again came as the complainant complained to Grahak Suraksha Mandal and ultimately the TV kit was taken to Ahmedabad and replaced after sometime but it did not work properly. THE complainant again complained and the TV set was repaired on 5.1.91 but according to the complainant after that also it did not work properly and the defects continued. The complainant then filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The appellant in Appeal No. 58/93 (opponent No. 1 in complaint-Chandubhai) appearing personally made the grievance that the District Forum has not considered several relevant facts which were produced before the Forum. He submitted that the TV set was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant several times and atleast twice the complainant had given in writing that it was repaired to his satisfaction, but that fact is not considered by the District Forum. He also urged that he had taken the Chairman and Members of the Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Kodinar and in their presence the trial was given and the working of the TV set was seen by them and they were satisfied. But that fact is also not considered by the District Forum. Ms. S.J. Shah, the learned Advocate for the appellant in Appeal No. 74/93 (Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint) made the grievance that the District Forum had committed grave error in directing to pay the amount of Rs. 12,300/- but did not pass any order to return the TV set. The complainant could not have been allowed to enjoy both the benefits. The other submissions by the appellants will be considered at the relevant stage.

The TV set was purchased by the complainant on 11.12.89 from the opponent No. 1 who is the dealer. Even according to the complainant, the TV worked satisfactorily for about 6 months and the complainant had no reason to make any grievance for that. The complaint was made to the opponent No. 1 and the repairs were carried out on 22.9.90 by the mechanic of opponent Nos. 2 and 3. The very fact that the TV worked satisfactorily for about 6 months and there was no reason to make any complaint about the working of the TV set establishes that there must not be any production defect. If the production defect would have been there, then the TV set would not have worked satisfactorily for about six months. It, however, appears that because of some defects in the parts of the TV set it started giving unsatisfactory results so far as the picture and sound were concerned. When the technician checked the TV for the first time and repaired it on 22.9.90, it appears that the complaint was made about the sound and the picture. The technician then made the remark "sound circuit and picture tube are o.k." The signature on the job sheet was then taken by the technician. It, therefore, appears that the TV was properly repaired at the initial stage but it again started giving unsatisfactory results. The complainant had applied to the Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Kodinar on 6.9.90 and that complaint was pending. The mechanic had again inspected the TV. It appears that the mechanic then advised that the kit should be taken to Ahmedabad and, therefore, it was taken to Ahmedabad. After that also the mechanic had inspected and repaired the TV on 5.1.91. The mechanic''s remarks were that the picture and sound were not matching and the sound was low. He replaced certain parts and volume control and completed. In the job sheet he then recorded that the TV was completed and "o.k.". The complainant then signed the certificate that the TV set had been serviced and installed to his satisfaction. The complainant signed this certificate on 5.1.91. According to the complainant his signature was taken by stating that if he would not sign he will have to pay the bill for the repairs. That submission of the complainant cannot be easily accepted as he is an educated man working as teacher and would not sign such certificate without the TV set repaired to his satisfaction. The complainant again complained and, therefore, the mechanic checked the TV set on 13.7.91. The mechanic noted that the complaint was "sound distorted, Height and width problem". The mechanic noted that the hissing sound was heard but that was due to the disc connection and such sound was found in the other TVs of other make of the neighbours. The adjustment about width control and height control was made. He then noted that the TV set was working o.k. and the sound and picture were clear. The complainant signed the note on 13.7.91. As the complaint was pending before the Grahak Suraksha Mandal, Kodinar, the pponent No. 1 again sent the mechanic on 12.10.91 for checking and at that time also complaint was that picture and sound did not match and colour was not proper. The mechanic adjusted some parts and completed. The complainant then signed the certificate on 12.10.91 stating that the TV was completed and o.k. According to the opponent No. 1, as the complaint was pending before the Grahak Suraksha Mandal and the complainant had made complaint, he requested the Chairman and Members to go to his shop and the complainant also remained present and his TV set was brought and it was worked in presence of the Chairman and Members of the Grahak Suraksha Mandal. The other sets were also set on and the Chairman and Members and even the complainant saw the picture on the TV sets and the complainant was satisfied and had no complaint. The complainant did not agree to this statement of the opponent No. 1 as according to him the Grahak Suraksha Mandal did not give him in writing about the filing of his complaint. It appears that the Members of the Grahak Suraksha Mandal were satisfied with the working of the TV on 11.1.1992 when they saw the picture on the TV set of the complainant. According to the complainant, the TV set was not working satisfactorily after that and he was required to make various complaints but they were not attended to satisfactorily and the TV is still defective. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 (appellants in Appeal No. 74/93) have stated in the appeal that atleast 10 times the TV was repaired. According to the opponents the complainant wanted to extort money and, therefore, is making false complaint. But that submission cannot be accepted as it is clear from the notes made by the mechanics that the picture and sound did not match and there were other damages as discussed above. Inspite of repairing the TV often, it was not found working satisfactorily and, therefore, it was the genuine grievance of the complainant. Even though it may not be the production defect at the initial stage, it appears that the performance of the TV was not technically sound and there is some defect and because of that the results are not satisfactory. The grievance of the complainant is genuine and not imaginary as it stand supported by the remarks made by the technician and the very fact that certain parts were required to be replaced. When the TV was sold for Rs. 12,300/- it is obligatory on the producer to see that the customer gets the TV set which would give him full satisfaction and would not give such defective results. We find that the TV set sold to the complainant by the opponent No. 1 and produced by opponent No. 3 is not technically sound and the results are unsatisfactory and, therefore, the opponents are required to return the amount which may be considered by the Commission to be adequate.

THE grievance of the appellants that the District Forum passed the order to pay the amount of Rs. 12,300/- to the complainant without ordering to return the TV set is not well founded. THE complainant cannot be allowed to enjoy the TV set and also to get back the purchase price. Under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum can grant the relief of replacing the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect or return the complainant the price or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant. THE order by the District Forum is erroneous to that extent. We have enquired from the complainant who argued his case in appeal before us and he showed the willingness to get the price and return the TV. We should therefore direct the complainant to return the TV set purchased from the opponent No. 1. Admittedly, the TV set was used by the complainant for about 6 months and he did not find any defect or reason to make any complaint for the period of six months. Even subsequent to that also after repairs he could use the TV and even at present also he is using the TV set. The TV set has been used by him for about 3 years and six months after the purchase and it was repaired frequently by the opponents at the request of the complainant and the complainant had given certificate of satisfactory repairs thrice. In view of that the opponent should not have been ordered to refund the entire purchase price. We, therefore, consider that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- should be ordered to be returned to the complainant by opponent Nos. 2 and 3. The order by the District Forum is, therefore, required to be modified to that extent.

THE District Forum directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- for mental torture and agony. It appears that the District Forum has passed the order under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Consumer Protecton Act, 1986. Under the said sub-section the District Forum may direct to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. As discussed above, it is clear that the opponent had sent technician to the complainant for repairing the TV whenever complaints were made. Not only that when the kit was taken to Ahmedabad he had given his TV set to the complainant for using it so that the complainant may not find any inconvenience. Even after the period of warranty the parts were replaced whenever found necessary and the grievances were made by the complainant. THE members of the Grahak Suraksha Mandal were called by the complainant at his shop and working of the TV set was shown to them in presence of the complainant. THE opponents had, therefore, made all the bonafide efforts to satisfy the complainant. As such there was no loss or injury caused to the complainant due to negligence of the opponents. THE District Forum has not recorded any such reason for awarding compensation and only stated in the final order directing to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/-. We, therefore, do not find any just cause to award the compensation amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant and the order by the District Forum is required to be modified to that extent. The District Forum passed the order to pay Rs. 12,300/- with interest @ 12% from 11.12.89 i.e. the date on which the TV set was purchased. The appellants have made grievance that the full price was not paid at the time of purchasing but it was purchased on instalments and inspite of that the District Forum directed to pay the interest on full price of the TV set from the date of the purchase. The complainant has admitted that the TV set was purchased on instalment. At the initial stage he had paid Rs. 6,000/- and subsequently had paid the full amount by instalments of Rs. 1,300/-, Rs. 1,200/-, Rs. 1,000/- etc. Apart from that, it is clear that the complainant is using the TV set since the date of the purchase and, therefore, the District Forum should not have passed order for interest from the date of purchase of the TV. The liability of interest will arise only from the date on which the opponent is directed to pay the amount due or the day on which the obligation of the opponent arises to pay or refund the amount. It was not the contention of the complainant before the District Forum that he had requested to refund the amount due. The only grievance was that the TV was not giving satisfactory result and, therefore, it should be properly repaired. The order for interest from the date of purchase therefore requires to be set aside. In view of our findings, we pass the following order. ORDER Both the appeals are partially allowed. The order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amreli directing to pay the amount of Rs. 12,300/- with running interest @ 12% from 11.12.89 and to pay Rs. 3,000/- for compensation for mental agony etc. is set aside and instead the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 (appellants in Appeal No. 74/93) are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the purchase price of TV set purchased by the complainant from the opponent No. 1 (appellant in Appeal No. 58/93), within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. The complainant (respondent No. 1 in appeal No. 58/93) is directed to hand over the TV set in same working condition to the opponent No. 1 (appellant in Appeal No. 58/93) within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant will not change any parts of the TV set and will hand over the possession in the same condition in which it is at present with him. The parties to bear their own costs of the complaint and appeal. Appeals partially allowed. ____________________