UMA KHANNA vs AGGRELLIOUS

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 15.6.92, filed by the appellant.

BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased a Videocon Colour T.V. Set from the respondent on 18.7.90. After a short period, defects developed in the said T.V. Set and black spots were noticed on the surface of the picture tube. Not satisfied with the repairs carried out by the respondent, the appellant filed his complaint before District Forum No. 1. The. District Forum while hearing the case, directed the representative of the Videocon (Manufacturers) to send a Senior Service Engineer to get the T.V. Set examined at the residence of the Appellant. The Service Engineer deputed by the Company while diagnosing the defect did confirm the entry of dust on the picture tube and suggested that this could be prevented by fixing a tape at the corner of the picture tube. Despite doing (his the problem of unsatisfactory functioning of the T.V. set continued.

Since the defect of black spots on the picture tube developed larger than before, the appellant again requested the District Forum who appointed Shri R. Bhandari, Service Engineer of Crown T.V. Company to diagnose the defects and submit his report. The direction given was as under : - "He after complete check-up shall report of the T.V. suffers from any manufacturing defect and why dust or carbon accumulates on the screen." After examining the T.V. Set Shri R. Bhandari gave the following report : - "After my minute observations, I am of the opinion that the problem for which I was deputed to Videocon T.V. is because of poor manufacturing design."

NOT satisfied with this report the District Forum again directed Shri Bhandari to elucidate the phrase "poor manufacturing design" and to inform whether there was any defect in the T.V. Set itself or in the fitting of the glass over the T.V. Set. In this second report Mr. Bhandari stated as under : - "That there is no electrical defect in the T.V. The problem is only connected with the fittings of glass over T.V. Set which attracts carbon particles through the gap between front mask and fitting of glass over a T.V. Set."

The District Forum in their order dated 15.6.92 have placed reliance on second report cited above that the re was no electrical defect in the T.V. Set and the problem was only connected with the fittings of glass over the T.V. Set which attracts carbon particles through the gap between the front mask and fitting of glass over the T.V. et. The District Forum therefore held that here was no manufacturing defect in the T.V. Set and further that the respondent had been rendering proper after sales service.

THE appellant not satisfied with the order of the District Forum and having had to face avoidable inconvenience, suffering, annoyance and embarrassment with the performance of the T.V. Set filed the present appeal. The appellant''s contentions are that the T.V. Set had been giving defective service, that the District Forum has erred in placing reliance on the second report submitted by Shri R. Bhandari, Service Engineer of M/s. Crown T.V. and that the remedy suggested by the representative of M/s Videocon of fixing a tape at the corner of the picture tube to prevent the problem of dust and black spots on the screen was no remedy to the problem of defective performance of the T.V. Set. Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the term ''defect'' as under : - "Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods."

In none of the reports which were given by Shri R. Bhandari Service Engineer of Crown T.V. it was categorically, stated that the T.V. Set was giving ''trouble free service'' and no black spots were noticeable on the screen. No evidence was produced by the respondents that all brands of T.V. sets have the problem of dust and the only method to overcome the problem of seepage of dust is to affix a tape on the corner of picture tube. Their warranty condition and instruction also do not specify any such condition. In our view a play on words or relying merely on generies can not satisfy a consumer and that too in respect of a T.V. Set which is not a object to be placed as a piece of decoration to be dusted from time to time and adores with a tape around the glass to prevent the seepage of dust.

THE argument of the respondent that the phenomenon of dust is common to all brands of T.V. with no adverse effect on the life of picture tube or performance of T.V. Set cannot be accepted as a satisfactory answer to the problem of defective performance of the T.V. Set. It does not negate the element of fault, imperfection or shortcoming and maintenance of standard as provided in Section 2(1)(f) of Consumer Protection Act.

EVEN accepting the fact that dust and heat are the two enemies of modern technology and particularly electronics, and that a T.V. Set is an electronic item, its functioning must countenance this phenomenon and reduce its occurrence to a level to provide ''trouble free service''. In the absence of this the element of manufacturing defect which was diagnosed by the Service Engineer of Crown T.V. in his first report is fully established. In the event the seepage of dust and accumulation of carbon continuous the T.V. Set is bound to suffer with adverse effect on its performance and life cycle. The District Forum I had given a specific direction to the representative of Videocon : "To send a senior service engineer who should ensure that the T.V. Set should function without putting any tape and also that during its functioning a line may not come again."

Both these defects were not rectified by the respondent and as such the element of ''defect'' and ''defective service'' are established beyond doubt.

In coming to this conclusion we are, further fortified by the fact that the T.V. Set was produced by the appellant in this Commission on 5-11-1992 when it was shown that lot of carbon had accumulated on the picture tube. It was also shown that the carbon had settled inside the filter glass which is fixed in front of the picture tube. It was also pointed out that more dust and carbon had accumulated on the left part of the screen than what had accumulated on the right part of the screen and that inspite of affixing the tape on the outer filter glass the carbon had accumulated on the screen and the filter glass.

IN consequence we allow the appeal, setaside the impugned order of the District Forum I and direct the respondent to replace the T.V. Set with a new one on usual warranty within a period of 90 days failing which action under Section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act will be taken against him. Costs of Rs. 1,000/- is further awarded towards litigation expenses. Appeal allowed with costs.