MADHU DAYAL vs GOLDLINE ELECTRONICS & 2 ORS.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No.387/2014 - Madhu Dayal Vs. M/s. Goldline Electronics & Ors. by which, appeal filed the complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner purchased Samsung LED TV from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 5.9.2009. In August/September, 2013, TV stopped working and on an intimation by complainant OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2''s

authorized person visited house of complainant and intimated that panel of TV has become defective which requires replacement. Vide e-mail dated 16.10.2013, OP expressed inability to replace, as same was not available and offered refund of 34% of the price after deducting 66% depreciation. Non-availability of parts was on account of ulterior motive to force consumers to purchase new expensive products. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. OP No. 2 & 3 resisted complaint and submitted that first complaint was lodged after 4 years of purchase. It was further submitted that as product was old and spare part of TV was not available, complainant was offered 34% depreciated value. Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund 34% of Rs.1,10,000/- along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of litigation Rs. 7,000/-. Appeal filed by complainant for enhancement was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

There is delay of 84 days in filing revision petition and I do not find any reasonable explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of 84 days and in such circumstances, application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that OP were bound to provide spare parts for a long period looking to value of TV and learned District Forum committed error in allowing only 34% of the value of TV and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any guidelines on record to substantiate that OP was under an obligation to provide spare parts even after 4 years of sale of TV. She placed reliance on Income Tax Schedule in respect of admissible depreciation. This schedule does not contain any item as TV. TV cannot be considered in the heading Furniture and Fittings including electrical fittings and on that basis, complainant is not entitled to get more compensation than awarded by District Forum and upheld by learned State Commission.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage on merits as well as barred by limitation.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.