L.G. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD. vs ASHOK DOOMRA

AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we find that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within time. Consquently, the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The misc. application stands disposed of. First Appeal No. 1551 of 2006

THIS is an appeal by L.G. Electronics Industries (P) Ltd. against the judgment and order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur dated 30.8.2006 by which the complaint of the complainant was disposed of in the following terms: "In view of that has been discussed above, it is held that the opposite parties practised unfair trade practice in selling a television of 28.7 inches by representing it to be 29 inches. Hence the complaint is accepted with Rs. 2,000 as costs and the opposite parties are directed to replace the television set in question with 29 inches television or to refund its price within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the records."

Briefly, the facts are that complainant purchased a TV set from Punjab TV Centre in the sum of Rs. 16,500 on 20.3.2006, which was manufactured by L.G. Electronics Industries Private Ltd. The model mentioned on the cash memo is ''RT29FC85VE''. Complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum on the ground that in fact it was represented by the seller of the TV that the TV had screen of 29", but on getting it measured from an expert Mr. Naresh Kumar Kukkar, he gave report dated 16.5.2006 that when the screen of the TV was measured horizontally it measured 22" but when measured diagonally it measured 27.5". Since, according to the complainant, he had paid for TV of 29" screen, but in fact had been sold TV having screen of only 27.5", that was not the article he had purchased and paid for. Since only TV of 27.5" screen was sold to him and was charged for 29" screen, there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and complaint was filed with a prayer that either a new TV of 29" screen should be given or money be refunded to him. The complaint has been allowed by the District Forum as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal.

One fact which is not being disputed is that for measuring the size of the screen the same has to be measured diagonally and not horizontally. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no document or advertisement issued by the appellant to show that the screen is of 29". Even on the cash memo produced by the complainant no size of the screen is mentioned. It was further submited by him that the size of the TV screen is always to be in metric measurement i.e., millimetres, centimetres and metres and not in inches. On the cardboard box in which the TV in question was packed the size mentioned is 73 cms. The companies are also prohibited by law to give the size in inches. He further submitted that the size of the TV screen is really the size of the picture tube and the cabinet of the T.V. covers some part of the picture tube and while actually viewing a picture on the screen of the TV it will be less than 73 cms. According to the appellant Counsel, the picture tube measures 72.5 cms. and not actually 73 cms. For this it is submitted that under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 as well as of 1976, margin of 2% plus/minus error is allowed in case of measurement of length. If that margin of error is allowed, then it is within the limits. Further, it was argued that the complainant raised no objection at the time of the purchase of the TV that the screen of the same was less in length.

ON the other hand, the appellant, who is present in person, submitted that on the cash memo the number of model is given, which indicates the length of the TV screen. In the present case, the model is RT29FC85VE and, according to the appellant, the figure ''29'' indicated length of the screen in inches. It was further submitted that at no place it was indicated that the size of the screen, whether in inches or in centimetres would be the size of the picture tube and not the size of the actual screen on which the picture can be seen from the TV. After hearing the Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person, we are of the view that there is susbstance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record to show that it was ever represented by the appellant that the actual screen length of the T.V. would be 29". No document or brochure has been brought to our notice by the respondent. The only indication was on the cardboard box in which the T.V. was packed that it was of 73 centimetres. 73 Centimetres have admittedly to be measured diagonally and as per the measurement it is 72.5 centimetres. The actual screen on which the picture can be seen is slightly less than the picture tube measurement inasmuch as slight portion of the picture tube is covered by the T.V. cabinet. Giving margin of error as per the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, we are of the view that the screen could be taken to be of 73 centimetres. It cannot be said to be any unfair trade practice as alleged by the respondent. However, we are of the view that it would be much better if the manufacturer of the T.V. were to mention all these details which have been noticed in this judgment in the brochure, the instructions book of the T.V. as also on the cardboard box, so that the buyer of such a commodity is very clear in his mind as to what he is buying. On facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to hold that there was any unfair trade pratice.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the District FORum and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal may be refunded to it by way of crossed bank draft/cheque after 45 days. The orders were reserved on 18.4.2007. Be communicated to the parties. Appeal allowed.