AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this Revision Petition there is challenge to order dated 13.7.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short as ''State Commission '') vide which appeal of petitioner challenging order dated 15.1.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-II (for short as ''District Forum '') was dismissed.
BRIEF facts are that the respondent No. 1/complainant on 2.7.2007 bought a 29 " Colour TV from respondent No.2/OP No. 1 under Exchange Scheme against his Akai CTV 27. The aforesaid TV was represented by respondent no. 2 to be of 29 ". On that basis entire payment was made by respondent no.1, under aforesaid exchange scheme. When respondent No. 1 measured the screen of the aforesaid TV at his home, he was shocked to find that the size of screen of TV was 27 " instead of 29 ", that is, size of screen was 2 " smaller. Whereas, respondent no. 2 had represented at the time of sale of aforesaid CTV that screen of CTV was 29 ". In this regard, respondent no. 1 wrote in the Engineer ''s Report Book of respondent no. 2, that aforesaid TV was sold by representing the same as of 29 " whereas, it was actually only of 27 ". When respondent no.1 asked respondent no. 2 to replace the aforesaid TV of 27 " with a T.V. of 29 ", respondent no. 2 asked him to make a complaint to Customer Care. Accordingly, complaint was made on 16.7.2007. It is further stated that only after 15 days of purchase of the aforesaid TV, a tube of the same became out of order and on report about the same, employee Praveen Kumar and Jeetu came on 02.08.2007 and they also measured the size of the screen of the T. V. and it was found to be of 27 " instead of 29 ". The aforesaid act of petitioners and respondent no.2 is covered within the deficiency in service. No written reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners and respondent no. 2 in the District Forum.
DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners and respondent no.2 to take back 27 " TV from respondent no. 1 and provide 29 " TV along with receipt to him and to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- towards the costs of complaint within two months from the date of order. In case of not giving 29 " T.V., price of T.V. Rs. 12,000/- may be given to respondent no.1.
AGGRIEVED by order of the District Forum, petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed their appeal. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that picture tube is fixed in the cabinet of TV set, as a result of which cabinet of TV cover some part of the picture tube due to which about 2 " of the picture tube is not visible in the finished product. In the present case also, the visible area is only approximately 27 " which is measured diagonally. However, the actual size of picture tube is 29 ". Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of petitioners or respondent no.2.
AS apparent from the record, petitioners and respondents had no defence before the District Forum, since they did not file their written statement. Thus, averments made in the complaint have gone unrebutted.
AS per copy of bill placed on record, respondent no. 2 had sold a "29 Colour T.V. ". This bill nowhere mentions that screen of T. V. is to be measured diagonally. District Forum in its order has held that ; "As far as the question of the deficiency in service is concerned, it is well proved by the receipt issued by the opposite party and the affidavit tendered by the complainant that the T. V. sold was not of 29 inch, the complainant has stated that the same is of 27 inch and in support of the statement he has filed affidavit. The opposite party has objected on it and has stated in this regard that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence that the T. V. was of 29 or 27 inch. In my opinion, no expert opinion is required in the present matter because any normal person can tell after measurement as to what is the size of the T. V. and the complainant has produced the receipt of the purchase of the T. V. and the opposite party has not denied the same, then there is no reason to reject this statement of the complainant and hence it is proved that the T. V. sold by the opposite party is of 27 inch which is certainly a deficiency in service. Thus, it is proper and in the interest of justice that the complainant must be given 29 inch T.V. and Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- towards the costs of the complaint by the opposite party to the complainant. "
AS already observed, bill of TV specifically mention that the T. V. is of 29 ". Now it does not lie in the mouth of petitioners and respondent no. 2 to take shelter under this plea that T. V. in question is having 29 " picture tube and screen is to be measured diagonally.
ADMITTEDLY , there are concurrent findings of facts that petitioner has sold 27 " Colour T.V. in the garb of 29 " T.V. Thus, no jurisdictional error has been shown to us to call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, present petitioner is without any legal basis and same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand Only) Petitioners are directed to deposit the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " within four weeks from today.
IN case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, then petitioners shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
PENDING application stands disposed of. List on 31st August, 2012, for compliance. Revision Petition dismissed.