MANOJ ELECTRONICS Vs. MACLINE MASSY
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant is a dealer of
TV manufactured by Philips India Ltd. and respondent No. 2 is the
authorized service centre of Philips India Ltd. On account of having sold
a defective TV for the value of Rs. 3,200, the District Forum, vide
impugned order dated 24.5.2001 directed the appellant to refund the price
of the TV along with 15% interest till the date of payment and Rs. 5,000
as compensation for harassment undergone by the respondent and Rs. 2,000
towards cost of litigation.
(2.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant tried to absolve its liability to pay the price of the defective TV and interest as he was
only the agent/dealer, receiving commission from the manufacturer.
(3.) IT is not a case where the amount was directly received by the manufacturer. The manufacturer was selling TVs through its dealers and
not directly. The explanation of the respondent in not making Philips
India Ltd. as a party is that he tried to obtain the address of Philips
India Ltd. from the appellant and also from the authorized service
centre -respondent No. 2 but no body gave the proper information or the
address and as such he could not implead Philips India Ltd.
Merely because the appellant was only the dealer does not absolve it from the liability of selling a defective TV. Taking
dealership of the manufacturer has the same liability as that of the
manufacturer as the consumer deals directly with such a dealer and not
with the manufacturer. By this concept the liability of the manufacturer
as well as the dealer is joint and several. As regards the allegation of
TV being defective, the Counsel for the appellant has contended that the
TV was purchased in the year 1990 and the complaint was made in the year
1992 and he availed the benefit of warranty during this period and there was no deficiency in service nor was TV suffering from any defect of
manufacturing nature. Further, Counsel for the appellant has referred to
the guarantee annexed with vouchers of the TV showing the address of the
guarantor as Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. and, therefore, it is
not open to the respondent to know that he did not know the name of the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.