GEETA JETHANI Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants have approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore, stating that the 1st complainant had purchased a Television set of Thomson make on 12.2.1997 for Rs. 15,500/-. There is also a warranty issued by the 1st opposite party to rectify the defects and to carry out service. Within 2 months of the purchase, blue patches were seen on the screen and in spite of several complaints in person, no steps were taken by the opposite party either to carry out the repairs or replace the television set. Therefore, the 1st complainant went and made a complaint to the Service Engineer Mr. Logobiraman, who came and inspected the T.V. set and promised to take steps. Since no action was taken, the complainants gave a notice on 27.10.1997 to which the Service Engineer Mr. Logobiraman inspected the said T.V. set and rectified the defect and obtained the signature of the 1st complainant. But again there were similar patches. Thus there is deficiency of service and hence the complainants prayed for replacement of the T.V. set with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the loss caused to him.

(2.) The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace the T.V. set or pay Rs. 15,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service and cost of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The purchase was made on 12.2.1997. The complaint was filed on 11.2.1998 and taken on file on 17.2.1998. In view of the subsequent developments, we are of the view that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case or canvass on the correctness of the finding of the Forum below. The order of the Forum below was passed on 31.3.1999. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Zonal Manager took immediate steps by replacing the said T.V. set to the customer on 4.5.1998 which has been acknowledged by the customer. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, immediately on receipt of notice from the Forum below on the laying of the complaint, on 4.5.1998 itself the T.V. set has been replaced. The 1st complainant has also made an endorsement in the letter dated 30.4.1998 of the company on 4.5.1998 to the effect that he has received a new Thomson T.V. set, and he has also written a letter, xerox copy of which is filed, stating that on 4.5.1998 they have taken back the old T.V. set. This letter is dated 9th June, 1999. Thus we find that the complainant, having received a new T.V. set in replacement, has chosen to prosecute the complaint. This amounts to unjust enrichment and fraud upon the legal Forum. No doubt it is only copies of the documents are now produced by the appellants before this Commission. But on such account, we cannot reject or overlook the same. We compared the signature of the 1st complainant found in the receipt with that of him found in the affidavit and find that it tallies with that of the 1st complainant. The 1st complainant, therefore, after the filing of the complaint, having received a new T.V. set, ought not to have prosecuted the complaint further. Consumer Redressal Forum is intended to help consumers from unfair trade practice and the indifferent attitude of the persons who trade or hire their services for the benefit of the public. But here, in this case, the consumer, having made a complaint and having received a replacement and thus the defect having been set right, was not justified in further prosecuting the complaint. It amounts to suppression of material facts and it is also a shameless act on the part of the complainants to make an unlawful gain. In this bargain, he has also made the Consumer Forum an innocent victim of his fraudulent contrivance. Such conduct on the part of the consumer should not be encouraged and it deserves to be condemned. Therefore, in such circumstances, we do not accept the technical objections raised by the Counsel for the respondents about the filing of these records before this Commission without notice to them or without an application. This Forum is intended to promote natural justice and the cobwebs of procedural intricacies cannot fetter the hands of this Forum, especially when a party, having received the benefit, ought not to be allowed to suppress the same and make a mockery of the entire process of law. Hence, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in upsetting the award of the lower Forum on the above ground.