KARPAGAM AGENCIES Vs. R VALLUVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint relates to the sale of a TV set of the make TEXLA. According to the complainant, the TV set supplied did not function properly and the opposite parties have not chosen to rectify the same or replace the same and, therefore, the complaint has been laid for recovery of the cost of TV or replacement of the same with compensation for mental agony and costs.

(2.) The opposite parties contended that they took back the original set and gave a new set but the complainant again came and made complaints about the same and the opposite parties informed him that due to fluctuations in power supply and as some times the TV is put on and viewed non-stop throughout the day, such defects are likely to occur and, therefore, the opposite parties took the responsibility of rectifying the mistake and replacing the components if any defect occurred in future. The complainant who promised to come the next day and take back the TV, did not come at all and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service.

(3.) The complainant purchased the TV on 17.10.1995 and that it did not function on the next day and, therefore, he made a complaint. The opposite parties immediately came and rectified the same. But again on 20.10.1995 it went out of order and the opposite parties on 17.11.1995 changed the picture tube. In the proof affidavit filed by the complainant he would say that one Ramesh from the opposite parties came and represented that it is a manufacturing defect. The complainant wrote a letter on 26.8.1996 and then also sent a communication to the Consumer Council who on behalf of the complainant, also sent a letter to the opposite parties. The opposite parties while acknowledging the receipt of the letter from the Council, has stated in their letter dated 25.9.1996 that they are sorry to learn that the complainant had been facing problems due to the unsatisfactory performance of the TV set and that they understand that the TV set had been attended to by a qualified engineer and that now it is giving satisfactory performance. Thus in their letter the opposite parties have admitted that the complainant has been facing problems due to the unsatisfactory performance of the TV purchased by him. This letter has been addressed by M/s. Jupiter Radios who are the manufacturers of TEXLA TV set. The dealer viz. , the 1st opposite party sent a reply on 23.9.1996 stating that it is a TV set of a reputed company and because of constant fluctuation of power supply in their town the components became defective and that this problem cannot be eradicated in toto and when the TV set was handed over to them it was defective and the set was attended to by their service people. M/s. Jupiter Radios have also written on 4.11.1996 to inform that they have instructed their dealer to rectify the defect in the set immediately and that they are willing to send the components if any required for rectifying the same and they have also stated that they do not want their customer to suffer and that they will attend to the set within 10 days. They have also addressed a letter to the 1st opposite party stating that they understand that the complainant has returned back the set and that they supplied the TV sets on condition that the 1st opposite party will provide after-sales service. Therefore, they have requested the 1st opposite party to attend to the above set immediately and return back the same to the customer without any further delay. Thus, these letters would go to show that the TV set purchased by the complainant from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party was not performing satisfactorily and that it was giving frequent trouble and that the complainant had to, in disgust, return the TV set to the 1st opposite party. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that deficiency in service has been proved satisfactorily in this case. The contention of the opposite parties is that due to fluctuation in power supply and due to non-stop and continuous user of the TV set, the defect would have occurred. We do not find any such stand taken in their reply nor they have chosen to report to their manufacturers on those lines. Even assuming that there was frequent power fluctuation, they ought to have made sufficient provision to withstand the fluctuations. In fact the 2nd opposite party has stated that they have appointed the 1st opposite party as a dealer in the hope that they would give satisfactory after-sales service. But whereas the 1st opposite party has not given any satisfactory service and the fact that the TV set had been returned by them was not even reported to the manufacturer of the TV set. Thus, in such circumstances, it is clear that there is deficiency in service and we do not, therefore, find any merit in this appeal.