JAYPEE ELECTRONICS PVT LTD Vs. P KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st opposite party made an advertisement in the newspapers stating that the 1st opposite party being the sole distributor for Akai colour televisions, would be exchanging the colour TVs of any brand with a new Akai colour TV for a lesser price. According to the complainant he made inquiries with the 1st opposite party who directed him to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant who was having an Uptron colour TV, in good faith took the same to the 2nd opposite party and got in exchange an Akai Model CT 2107 and the complainant was asked to pay the price of Rs.12,290/- as against the cost price of Rs.21,290, stating that the Uptron TV of the complainant was valued at Rs.9,000/- and it was deducted from the bill and, therefore, the complainant as to pay Rs.12,290/-. After installation of the same, the complainant found that there were colour patches and imperfection and, therefore, he went on many occasions to the 1st opposite party and complained about the same. The 1st opposite party sent another Akai TV after much correspondence and complaints in exchange for the Akai TV already supplied to the complainant and the same was also found to be defective with colour erasures in certain parts of the TV screen and deep colour patches in other parts. Thus the picture tube was very weak and bad. There was defect in the performance and therefore the complainant informed the 1st opposite party again and requested them for replacement. The complainant had been supplied with a third set and it also developed a snag and there was defective functioning of the same. The display of the channels was hardly visible on the screen and the images appeared on the screen only long after it was switched on. The complainant thus came to the conclusion that the opposite parties have tricked the complainant and induced the gullible public into believing that in the "exchange-Mela" they would sell good and standard colour televisions in exchange for the old sets. But on the other hand they have been marketing deficient, defective and below-standard television sets by way of "exchange-Mela". Thus the complainant was deceived by the false representation by such "exchange-Mela" where only old and defective televisions which are of bad quality are being exchanged. Hence, there is not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice in the sale. Therefore, the complainant prays for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for refund and reimbursement of the cost of the Akai TV in a sum of Rs.21,290/- and costs.

(2.) The 1st opposite party filed a version stating as follows : It is true that the advertisement appeared in the Dailies regarding the exchange of television sets at a price. The 1st opposite party was a distributor initially, but it has now ceased to be a distributor. The complainant came to the 1st opposite party and had his television set exchanged on three occasions. The replacements were made to the best satisfaction of the complainant. The other averments are not admitted. As a distributor, this opposite party only passed on the television sets which have been marketed by Akai company. The complainant has made an imaginative and exorbitant claim against this opposite party. Instead of filing a suit, he has approached the Consumer Forum claiming compensation which is fanciful. The complainant having failed to claim against Akai Company, the manufacturer, the 1st opposite party is not liable. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.

(3.) The 3rd opposite party has stated as follows: The 1st opposite party was the sole distributor and the 2nd opposite party is one of the dealers who sold Akai Colour TV Model CT 2107 on 10.8.1996 under exchange scheme. No false representation was made to the complainant to purchase their TVs The complainant voluntarily accepted the exchange scheme and surrendered his old TV The 3rd opposite party has no information about the correspondence that took place between the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. The 3rd opposite party's branch office at Chennai was started on 1.6.1997. The 3rd opposite party was in no way responsible. On moral gesture the request of the complainant to rectify the repairs in the TV set was carried out though the case proceedings are under way and the TV set has been returned to the complainant on 15.10.1997. The 3rd opposite party is, therefore, not liable.