SURE MARKETING SERVICES vs LEO D'SOUZA

LEO D''Soqza, respondent, had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Goa alleging that he had bought a Sears Elcot Television from M/s. Sure Marketing Services, petitioner herein. Since the date of purchase there were minor problems with the TV set and after two years use it stopped functioning. He was told that a part called CTV EHT 5002 required replacement. The respondent wrote to the manufacturers of the said TV set. Who were in Bombay � and after receiving quotation, got the said part on payment of Rs. 500/-. Alongwith the part, he also received a letter, addressed to the service Engineer of the petitioner, containing instructions for fitting it. The petitioner had received a copy of that letter. When the respondent contacted the petitioner, he was told that Service Engineer would come to his house and fix the part for which he would have to pay Rs. 75/- as service charges. The Engineer went to the respondent''s house and took away the TV set to his workshop with a promises that it would be returned next day after repairs. The respondent waited for 7 days and when he did not receive the set back, he contacted the petitioner. He was told that the picture tube had burnt out and he would have to pay Rs. 6,000/-. The respondent complained that he had been cheated by the petitioner as he had procured the part from Bombay. He, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be directed to remove the defect and restore the TV set to him with a Warranty Certificate.

PETITIONER contested the complaint. According to them, the TV set had been purchased by the respondent in October, 1985 and at the time of repairs it was out of the warranty period. During the warranty period of one year, there was only one complaint which was remedied. It was in fact a fault in the antenna and its direction was changed. After the TV set had stopped working, the respondent had shown his set to some amateur mechanic and it was he who had informed him, that EHT part was defective. The respondent had approached them for the EHT part, but they told him that they were authorised to stock the spare parts for their own requirements and not for sale. The respondent .procured an Indian Equivalent part from Bombay and got it fixed through some technician and when the TV set did not work, he approached them (i.e. petitioner) and asked them to collect TV set from his house. They sent the technician who noticed that the EHT part had been soldered by some body and then removed. Their technician fixed the EHT part after bringing the TV set to the workshop. Only after fixing the said part, when the circuit was complete, it was noticed that the picture tube was defective. The petitioner expressed his readiness to repair the TV set provided the complainant supplied the picture tube or paid its price. The District Forum did not go into the question if the picture tube had been damaged at the house of the complainant when some body had fiddled with the TV set and found out that EHT part had gone out of order or it was damaged in the workshop of the present petitioner. The District Forum proceeded on the basis of warranty. It remarked: "The point to be considered is whether the complainant is liable to procure a new picture tube at his cost or whether the opposite party is liable to repair the TV including the picture tube at his cost. The answer to this will depend upon as to whether the warranty for the picture tube was for 1 year as claimed by the opposite party or beyond that period as claimed by the complainant. The only evidence produced in this regard is a xerox copy of the warranty card which says "warranty valid from the date of purchase up to ..." That portion is blank and since no period is fixed there it was submitted by the complainant that there is no time limit. It is clear that the opposite party by not filling up the exact period has exposed himself for the warranty to an unspecific period. However, we are not prepared to accept the argument that warranty is for unlimited period. In our view in such circumstances it would be just and proper to fix a reasonable period. We do not think that any consumer in such circumstances could be asked to shell out a huge sum of Rs. 6,000/- for picture tube within a period of 2 to 4 years of purchase. We hold that the stand of opposite party is unreasonable."

The District Forum ordered the petitioner to remove the defect within a period of 30 days.

THE present petitioner appealed to the State Commissioner and contended that the warranty was only for a period of one year. However, the State Commission, without any discussions remarked: "Considering the facts and the circumstances of this case we are convinced that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the District Forum, Panaji." The Slate Commission ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant as costs of the picture tube for getting the TV set repaired at some other workshop as he (i.e. complainant) had lost faith in the petitioner.

THE petitioner has now filed this Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission. We are of the opinion that this petition is liable to be accepted as both District Forum and the State Commission have committed material irregularity while deciding the case before them. It was never the case of the complainant that the picture tube had burnt out during the period of warranty. Even if the period for which the warranty of the picture tube or TV set was to last was not filled in the warranty card, the complainant must have enquired from the dealer, at the time he purchased the set, about the period of warranty. Every purchaser of electronic or electric goods or appliances enquired about the period of warranty or guarantee. Had an indefinite period of warranty been given to the complainant, he would have mentioned that fact in the complaint. The TV set had been purchased by him in October, 1985. The non-mention of the period of warranty in the complaint shows that the picture tube had burnt out after the expiry of the period of warranty. During the course of enquiry in the case, the complainant noticed that the column meant for writing the period of warranty in the warranty card was left blank by the dealer. He tried to take benefit of that omission. It is common knowledge that usually a warranty or guarantee for one year is given for such articles though in some cases this period may extend to 2 years. The District Forum was, therefore, wrong when they assumed that the reasonable period of warranty must be 2 to 4 years. The complainant did not approach the Forum which clean hands. According to him, the set was not working satisfactorily since the date it was purchased. No evidence was led to that effect. Then it was alleged that after two years it stopped functioning. The set was more than 4 years old when he had approached the Forum.

IT has already been noticed that there is nothing on the file from which it can be inferred that the picture tube had been damaged by the present petitioner. Hence, we accept the Revision Petition and set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum and dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant (i.e. respondent herein). We make no Order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.