DYNAVOX ELECTRONIC LTD. vs MUNNI JAISWAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1993 passed by the District Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 75/1993. The facts of the case, stated in brief, are that the complainant purchased one Canon Photostat machine for his earning costing Rs. (sic). THIS machine was sent for installation on 15.3.1991 at Deoria. The Engineer also came on the same day and tried to instal the machine but could not do so. When the machine was brought, certain items, namely colour toner, warranty card, tool box, operating manual, servicing book etc. of the machine were not brought. On 25.3.1991 the Engineer again came and tested the machine but the machine did not work. Three months'' warranty was given to the complainant. The machine could not be installed and it did not work satisfactorily. Various letters were written to the company by the complainant for getting the machine in proper working condition. A man was also sent to the company for setting the machine in working order. On 20th May, 1991, one person came to check the machine and he stated that certain parts of the machine will be changed. These parts were changed on 29.5.1991 but even then the machine did not work on account of non-functioning of the colour unit. THIS colour unit was taken out on account of which the machine totally stopped working. The machine could not be put into proper working order even during the warranty period. Thereafter on 14.6.1991 intimation was sent to the company for getting the machine in working order. He was told that if the service contract is not executed, the machine will not be serviced. A sum of Rs. 7,000/- was demanded for getting the machine into working condition. On 8.8.1991 a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was sent by means of draft and a receipt was issued on 13.8.1991 for one year service contract. The machine should have been put into working condition during warranty period. But even during Annual Maintenance Contract, the machine could not be repaired and put into working condition. Ultimately the machine stopped working even though some repairs were done. Thereafter on 23.7.1991 and subsequently letters were sent for repairing of the machine but nothing was done. No Engineer was sent for repairs of the machine.

THE opposite party contested the case and filed written statement. THE learned District Forum, after considering the respective cases of the parties, allowed the claim petition for recovery of Rs. 82,500/- alongwith damages in the form of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. It was also directed that the machine should be set right within a period of one month and should also provide colour toner, tool box, warranty card, servicing post and operating mannual, etc. Aggrieved against this order, the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

We have heard learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate and Mr. M.H. Khan, Counsel for the respondent. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the machine was installed at Deoria on 15.2.1991 and there was only three months'' warranty period. According to learned Counsel, the authorised agent went to repair the machine several times and the machine was put in working condition. Thereafter an AMC was taken during which the Engineer also serviced the machine and the machine was running properly. He has further argued that only a sum of Rs. 72,500 /- was claimed in the claim petition but the amount decreed is Rs. 82,500/-. He has further argued that no opportunity for filing evidence was given by the District Forum to the appellant. He has further argued that the warranty period and annual maintenance contract period had also expired and therefore the appellant was not bound to rectify the machine unless the company is paid charges for the same.

THE learned District Forum has mentioned in its judgment that the appellant has filed a written statement but no evidence was filed by him in support of the written statement. None was present in the Forum and hence the case was decided ex-parte. This finding in the case clearly goes to prove that the appellant did not appear before the learned District Forum to plead its case. THEre is no material on record to support that the learned District Forum had not given any opportunity to file evidence before it. THE appellant has not filed the copy of the order sheet or any application moved by it to show that the opportunity to file evidence was sought for and was not given. It was only copy of the order sheet of the District Forum which would have shown whether an opportunity to file evidence was given or not to the appellant. It is mentioned in the ground of appeal that on 29.4.1993 the appellant-opposite parties filed their reply to the complaint and the case was thereafter adjourned to 27.7.1993, but on that date the representative of the appellant fell ill due to which he could not appear before the District Forum nor make any alternative arrangement. It has further been mentioned in ground 4 of the appeal that the appellant filed certain annexures with the written statement but they were ignored and were not read in evidence to show that the case of the complainant was false. It may be mentioned that no averment has been made in the ground of appeal that no opportunity to file the evidence after filing the written statement was given by the learned District Forum or an opportunity was sought by the appellant and refused. On the question as to whether the documents alongwith written statement could have been looked into by the District Forum or not and whether these documents constituted evidence is to be seen. Section 13(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes procedures on receipt of a complaint. Sub-section 2(a) provides that a copy of the complaint is to be sent to the opposite party for filing his version of the case and where opposite party denies or disputes the allegation contained in the complaint, then the District Forum will decide to settle the consumer dispute. Sub-section 2(b) provides that the dispute is to be settled on the basis of evidence brought to the notice by the parties and thereafter decide the complaint. Thus it means that under Section 13(2)(b) the parties have to be allowed evidence in support of the allegation made by them in complaint or in written reply to the complaint which is popularly known as written statement. It may further be seen that Clause 4(iii) of Section 13 provides for reception of evidence on affidavits. Thus it is clear that the evidence which has to be relied upon by the District Forum has to be on the affidavit. If affidavit has not been filed in support of the documents tendered, then no amount of allegations made by other party can be looked into because it is not covered by the definition of the word ''evidence''. A document unless supported by affidavit is like a waste paper and can be safely ignored as has been rightly done by the District Forum. In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Others, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it has been held that CPC applies to certain provisions of the Consumer Protection Act which is given under Section 13, Sub-clause 4 of the Consumer Protection Act. These provisions apply to the District Forum as well as State Commission. When the opposite party-appellant has not submitted affidavit in support of the documents tendered by him, the same cannot be read in evidence and thus document had to be rejected and kept out of consideration, during the course of trial. Thus in view of this decision, papers filed by the opposite party unsupported by affidavit before the learned District Forum could not have been read in evidence and has been rightly rejected by the District Forum and we uphold the findings of the District Forum on this point.

IN the light of these facts, we find that the case, of the claimant was before the District Forum and appeal against that is pending before this Commission. Only the contentions put forward by the Counsel for the opposite party, appellant, could have been looked into by the District Forum or the claim could have been disproved by the appellant on the basis of evidence filed by the claimant. The learned District Forum has discussed various aspects of the matter involved in this case and the conduct of the appellant after supply of the machine to the complainant. It has been argued before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the present complainant is not a consumer as according to the allegations of the complainant, machine was defective from the very beginning and if they have failed to set the machine in working condition, no claim can be put forward by the claimant. It has further been argued by the learned Counsel that the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. As far as these points are concerned, it is in evidence of the complainant- opposite parties that the machine was purchased for his personal use in order to earn livelihood out of the income of the photocopy machine. According to the complainant it was not purchased for commercial purpose. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted because the machine was purchased for earning income for himself and the family of the complainant. The transaction of purchase of machine cannot be said to be for commercial purpose. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that is the warranty period as well as in the annual maintenance contract has expired and now. the machine cannot be repaired unless the repairing charges are borne by the complainant-opposite party. In this connection it has further been argued that the machine was defective from the very beginning and as such the appellant is not entitled to replace it as there is no deficiency in service. In support of this contention the complainant has placed reliance on the allegations of the complainant as well as case law.

IN the case of Chocklingam, Proprietor, Malandu Printers v. M. Amba Shankar and Others, published in II (1996) CPJ 179 (NC)=1986-96 CON.C 2283 (NS) the case decided by National Commission, Delhi, it was held that where there is a defect in the machine and the respondent has not refused to attend to the machine, but only demanded charges for servicing and charges for visiting Engineer and the complainant was not prepared to pay the same, then he is not entitled for free service after the expiry of the warranty date because there is no subsisting contract of service. IN that case the machine as a matter of fact was purchased for commercial purpose and by partnership firm. It was also held that the claim had become time-barred before the claim petition was filed. This case does not apply to the facts of the present case because in the present case the machine was not purchased for commercial use but the photocopier was purchased for earning his own livelihood by arranging loan from the Bank. IN the case of BPL v. N. Rathinasabapathy, reported in III (1994) CPJ 182 (NC)=1986-94 CON.C 1370 (NS) decided by National Commission, Delhi, it was held that when the machine was defective during the warranty period, and it was attended to by the opposite party, it cannot be said that the opposite party had been negligent in rendering services. This is not the case here. IN the present case, appellant- opposite party tried his best to put the machine in working condition, but they could not do so, during the warranty period as well as the annual maintenance contract. The machine had certain defects or developed defects which could not be repaired by the supplier-opposite party. The complainant was bound to pay the charges when the machine had been put in working condition during the warranty period and developed defects during its working condition and the complainant had refused to pay the charges after the expiry of warranty period or annual maintenance contract service period. Here the machine had defects from the very beginning and was not responding to the repairs undertaken by the opposite party. IN the case of Chocklingam v. M. Amba Shankarand Others (supra) it was also observed that if the machine was defective from the very beginning a dispute cannot be brought to the Consumer Forum.

AS against this, learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on a number of cases. In the case of Biman Roy v. Toshniwal Brothers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (2) CPR 185, decided by State Commission, West Bengal, the facts were that the Body Scanner was defective from the very beginning and the opposite party failed to instal and demonstrate it. It was held that even if the machine was purchased for commercial purpose, but it was defective for which the petitioner could not utilise and operate the scanning machine at its full capacity, the purchaser is a consumer as there was a warranty in respect of the machine. In case of R.P. Processing Unit v. Chowgole Industries Ltd., II (1994) CPJ 312, decided by State Commission, West Bengal, it was held that if a xerox machine has been purchased for self-employment after taking loan from the Bank, and it has developed certain defects which were not rectified, then it is a case of deficiency in service of the opposite party and in that case also the complainant had to pay interest to the Bank for the amount he had taken loan for which he is entitled to get appropriate compensation. Non-curing of defect not only caused financial loss to the complainant but also caused mental suffering, harassment, mental agony and torture for such a long time. A similar view was taken in the case of Bose Printing House v. Manu Enterprises Ltd. & Anr., II (1998) CPJ 383 decided by the West Bengal State Commission. The next case is Dynavex Electronics Ltd. v. Kalipada Panjal & Others, II (1998) CPJ 352, decided by West Bengal State Commission. It was held that even if there was manufacturing defect in the machine and was purchased for commercial purpose, the supplier is entitled to get service. It was also held in that case that if the machine required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it is defective. In case of Vice- President, HCL Ltd. v. Umesh Consultancy Services & Others, I (1998) CPJ 353, decided by Punjab State Commission it was held that a photocopier was purchased which was defective from the very beginning and many letters were written for replacement of the machine but the same was not replaced and attempts to repair the machine also failed, then it was held that the order for the replacement of the machine was justified. In this case also it was observed that the machine was defective from the very beginning. This case fully applies to the facts of the present case. In the case of Maman Singh v. M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. & Others, III (1994) CPJ 270, decided by Delhi State Commission, it was held that if a defective machine is supplied, then the consumer is entitled to refund the price of the article, interest on the capital and other incidental charges and damages on various counts. In the case of M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd. & Others v. M/s. Pioneer Typewriter Co., I (1996) CPJ 317 (NC), it was held that being a small partnership firm, purchased paper copier, which was defective, then the order of the State Commission directing for replacing of the defective machine by a new one and for damages etc. is perfectly justified. In the case of M/s. Amtrex Ambience Ltd. v. M/s. Alpha Radios & Others, I (1996) CPJ 324 (NC), decided by National Commission, New Delhi, it was held that an air- conditioner was purchased which developed defects and the opposite party was unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period, then the order of State Commission awarding damages and directing the appellant to remove all defects in the system and extending warranty by one year from the date of the order suffers with no illegality. In the last case of Kody Elcot Ltd. v. Dr. C.P. Gupta, I (1996) CPJ 7 (NC), decided by National Commission, it was found that where the machine developed defects after some limit and the opposite party could not rectify the defects, even after trying to do so and were promised to be rectified in future, it shows that the performance of the equipment is not satisfactory and the complainant is entitled for compensation etc. Thus from the cases law relied upon by the parties, it is clear that if an article is purchased which is defective from the very beginning, or developed defects during the course of operation during period of warranty and could not be repaired during this period, or even during the period of annual maintenance contract, then the complainant is entitled to get a replacement of the machine with an extended period of warranty or to get back the amount which he paid alongwith damages in the form of interest for the period for which the amount remained blocked and compensation for mental torture, harassment etc. alongwith cost of litigation. It is also clear that the opposite party cannot be allowed to say that if a machine is defective from the very beginning, then it is not a case of deficiency of service, and hence no replacement can be made.

Now the law is very clear on the point that even if a material is supplied in a defective condition or has manufacturing defect from the very beginning, then the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the machine or refund of its price alongwith other amount as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It cannot be a defence of the opposite party that the warranty period and the annual maintenance contract has expired. We have looked into the facts and circumstances of cases cited in order to arrive at a conclusion that if the defects in the machine arose during its normal working and they could not be repaired by the opposite party during the warranty or annual maintenance contract period or was supplied in a defective condition, then complainant is entitled to refund of this amount. In both these cases if it is found that the machine had defects which could not be repaired even after several attempts, the only inference that can be drawn is that it had some manufacturing defects and the consumer cannot be allowed to suffer on this account.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Bank of India v. N.V. Deoras, I (1998) CPJ 99 (NC), In this case it was held that written statement of the opposite party was on record, but the contention raised in the written statement was not considered by the State Commission. Hence the National Commission held that when the written statement was filed by the opposite party, therefore it was the duty of the State Commission to have considered the facts mentioned in the written statement. In this case according to learned Counsel for the appellant, it has been clearly laid down that if a written version is on record, it should have been considered by the District Consumer Forum. It may be mentioned that the learned District Forum in its order has mentioned that a written version was filed but in support of the same none appeared. It has also been seen in the early part of the judgment that evidence before the District Forum is to be put up in the form of affidavit. If the allegations made in the written statement are not supported on oath by means of an affidavit, then those are merely allegations and remain a waste paper till they are supported by evidence on record. THE evidence in a particular case is filed before the Court or the authority concerned in the form of oral evidence on oath which is recorded otherwise the evidence is given on affidavit. In the present case there is no material on record to suggest that in support of the written statement any affidavit was filed by the appellant to show that whatever has been alleged in the written version was correct. In the rules no particular form of giving evidence is given except an affidavit but if we see to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Codes, then we will find that the affidavit has to be on oath. THErefore, when the evidence has not been tendered on oath the District Forum is justified in ignoring the written version. Hence the case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not apply in the present case and Consumer Forum''s judgment cannot be assailed on this account. Now we come to the documents filed by the complainant before the District Forum. The complainant has filed copies of those documents which have been filed by her before the learned District Forum. An affidavit has already been filed in support of those documents to show that these documents have been filed before the learned District Forum. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, the photocopy machine was installed on 15.3.1991 and according to the allegations of the complainant it never worked satisfactorily. Thereafter till the expiry of the warranty period and the annual maintenance contract which was later on entered into between the respondent and appellant. Copy of Annexure Dl is on record which is dated 16.3.1991. The machine was installed but at that time it was not working properly but on the report of the man who had installed the machine, a note has also been made by Mr. Anil Kumar on behalf of the complainant that some of the material has not been received. In the column "Fault" it has been mentioned that there is a transportation problem. The next paper is Annexure D2 dated 25.3.1991. In this letter it has been mentioned that machine supplied to the complainant is a sophisticated machine and requires computer operating environment for continuous operation and best results. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that this machine should have been kept in air-conditioning environment for its proper working. This is an after-thought. When the machine was delivered, it was nowhere stated that this machine requires air-conditioning for its proper functioning. No information leaflet or any other paper has been filed for the appellant to show that this was a condition which was told to the complainant before settlement of the bargain. It is common knowledge that for proper working of photocopy machine, no air-conditioning atmosphere is needed. If this was a pre-condition for proper working of this type of photocopy machines, then the complainant should have been informed about the same so that he may have made up his mind either to purchase or not to purchase this type of machine which do not work in normal condition. This argument has to be rejected on the face of it.

ON 13.4.1991, the defect was attended to but the printing was not coming properly from the top side and has shifted about 3'' to the lower side which was not rectified. Later on 25.4.1991 the matter was still found to be cutting. ON behalf of the owner it has been written that after 13.4.1991 the machine is lying dead. Thereafter on 30 April, 1991, the defect was again attended to but there was problem in the passing of toner and the matter was not working coming properly. Thereafter the defect was attended to on 20.5.1991 but the machine was still not working and was tripping again and again on account of current not passing in MCD unit. Thereafter on 15 August, 1991 the problem was attended to but still the red colour cylinder was not working. The next servicing of the machine was done on 7.9.1991. It has been mentioned that the red colour cylinder is not working properly and copy is not clear. The next fault was attended vide Annexure D6. It is clearly written that all mirrors have been cleaned and the problem is rectified. It is further mentioned that the red colour is not working. On behalf of the proprietor it has been written that machine cover and parts price list have not been supplied so far. Red colour unit has also not been repaired. Then the machine was attended on 23.10.1991. It is written here that the wire is not working properly and without taking out the drum, this wire cannot go inside. On 28.11.1991 the machine was again attended to but two pages repetition was not working. On 12.12.1991 again the machine was attended to and it was mentioned that back-to-back was not working. Thereafter on 12.2.1992 it was again attended to but still it was not properly working as there was lining on the paper also. Thereafter on 6.3.1992, it was reported that dust cover is to be supplied, two sided mode solemnised not getting command from DC controller and PCB is to be changed. Then on 1.4.1992 there was back- to-back problem in the machine. Similarly on 10.4.1992 the same problem was there. On 29.4.1992 the grid and Carona wire was changed. It is further reported that the red copy was very light, separation mode not working and there was lining on the back side. On 6.2.1994, when the machine was again inspected, it was found that the machine is not working properly due to drum problem. Thereafter on 11.2.1994 when the machine was not working properly, it was again attended to. Some of the parts were taken back by the person who had attended the machine. On 11.2.1994 when the machine was attended to, it was not working due to MIC problem. A note has been made by one Mr. Anil on behalf of the owner that the person who had attended the machine had told that he will talk for replacement of the machine.

THE respondent has also filled few sheets of papers on which copies have been taken out of the machine. THEse copies were taken out on 17.6.1996. A perusal of these papers shows that they are not at all satisfactory and lot of black ink is present all over the papers and even the printing is not clear.

SOME correspondence, which took place between the parties, has also been filed by the complainant. Copies of letters dated 18.3.1991, 18.4.1991, 20.4.1991, 23.4.1991, 29.4.1991, 15.5.1991,19.5.1991 are on the record. They have been written by the complainant to the company detailing therein the defects and praying for removal of these defects. Letter dated 3.5.1991 is on record which shows that a machanic will be attending the machine. The letter dated 22 September, 1992 and internal office memo from Mr. V. Bhargava to one Mr. Pramod Bhargava, Lucknow indicating therein that the machine has been installed about two years back and it was suggested to the owner that the machine should be sent to Delhi Service Centre for thorough overhaul and checkup. For this reason, this memo is being written to Mr. Pramod Bhargava to coordinate with M/s. Munni Jaiswal and depute an Engineer to get the machine packed and sent alongwith a representative of M/s. Munni Jaiswal to their Delhi office. Then there is another letter dated 8 February, 1993 by one Mr. Trehan to Mr. Pramod Bhargava indicating to attend to the machine of the complainant and get it set right. The machine should be despatched to Service Centre at Delhi without fail. Thereafter on 10th February, 1993 a letter was written by Mr. Pramod Bhargava, Area Manager of the appellant for sending the machine to Delhi Service Centre so that it may be repaired.

Thus all these correspondence and the papers on record and the discussions made in the earlier part of the judgment clearly go to show that this machine had some manufacturing defect from the very beginning and it did not work satisfactorily from the date of its installation. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to show that about 60,000 copies were taken from this machine which shows that it was working satisfactorily and so many copies have been taken out. It may be pointed out that this argument has no force because the machine was attended to by the mechanic of the company very often and on his visit he must have taken out a number of prints in order to see the working of the machine. The machanic has not kept any record to show as to how many prints were taken out by him in order to check that the machine is working properly or not. These prints cannot be added to the number of prints which have been taken out by the complainant.

THUS the only conclusion which can be drawn by us is that this machine had manufacturing defect and was not working satisfactorily from the date of installation and the complainant had to suffer a lot in his business after investing huge amount. The appellant company has, therefore, committed deficiency in service to the complainant by not putting the machine in working condition even during the warranty period and thereafter during the annual maintenance contract period. The responsibility was sought to be shifted on the complainant after the expiry of warranty period and the annual maintenance contract and amount was demanded to change the defective parts which were defective from the very beginning. The complainant was not bound to pay for these defective parts and it was the duty of the appellant company to see that the machine was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant according to the standards laid down for working of such machines. It was very unreasonable on the part of the appellant company to ask complainant to provide air- conditioning type of atmosphere which is required for computer working. The company has tried to shift its responsibility and liability on the complainant by making such mischievous suggestions. The company knew well that all the photostat machines working at that time do not need any air-conditioning atmosphere. There is no proof on record to show that these machines require air-conditioning and this fact was not informed to the complainant before purchasing of the machine. This is a malpractice on the part of the company which cannot be permitted. It may be mentioned here that before this Commission the company was given a chance to repair the machine and to bring it back to working order so that the matter may end. Several directions were given but the machine was not got repaired for one reason or the other. The appellant tried its best even to ignore the orders passed by this Commission. This Commission on 27.5.1997, while dealing with the application for vacation of stay order moved by the appellant, directed to depute an Engineer to visit and examine the photostat machine in presence of the complainant and to do minor repairs ensuring functioning of the machine. The machine was not repaired. It was brought to the notice of the Commission on 23rd September, 1997 by the respondent that the orders of the Commission has not been complied with. It was observed in the order dated 1st October, 1997 that the machine is not working satisfactorily after minor repairs were done. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded for replacement of parts. The Commission ordered that this money be spent by the appellant himself and the machine maybe made operational within one month, but the compliance of this order was also not done. The appellant''s Counsel on 6th December, 1998 undertook to rectify the defects of the machine by 16.12.1998. Thereafter on 21.12.1998 it was ordered after going through the inspection report of the appellant dated 16.12.1998, that a new machine has to be supplied within 10 days and the rest amount is to be refunded, but even this order was not complied with. Thus we find that even after giving several opportunities to the appellant to rectify the machine, it was not complied with and the appellant continued to defy the orders of the State Commission also. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant had made a claim of Rs. 72,000/- but the claim has been decreed for Rs. 82,000/-. In reply to this argument it has been stated that the interest which was given to the company by the complainant was also awarded by the learned District Forum by its impugned order and included in this amount. A perusal of the copy of the complaint will go to show that the claimant had demanded the amount which has been spent in going to Delhi, spent on correspondence, for mental torture, loss in income, interest of the company at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month amounting to Rs. 30,000/- upto the date of claim and cost of the litigation. Therefore the learned Counsel is right to ask for cost which have been paid by the complainant, then no illegality has been done by the District Forum. In case of R.P. Processing Unit v. Chowgole Industries Ltd., II (1994) CPJ 312, it has been held by the West Bengal State Commission that if the complainant had to pay regular interest on the Bank loan for obtaining/ purchasing the machine from the opposite party, then he is entitled to get appropriate compensation on that account.

IN view of what has been stated above, we hold that there has been a deficiency in service on behalf of the appellant company in supplying a defective photostat machine to the complainant which did not work satisfactorily from the date of its installation and caused financial loss, harassment, mental agony and torture for a sufficiently long time and severely affected his business. The complainant had purchased this machine for earning his livelihood but on the other hand he had to suffer a lot at the hands of the complainant. The appellant was given time by this Commission to repair the machine and the appellant had attended the machine for repairing the same. However, the machine could not be rectified so far. The learned District Forum had in its judgment directed repair of the machine and in the alternative ordered for payment of the amount including the price of machine, damages etc. As the machine could not be repaired so far, and the order passed by the District Forum cannot be implemented and complied with by the appellant, the appellant will now refund the entire amount as directed by the District Forum and will pay the damages in the form of interest as provided by the learned District Forum till the date of payment. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Let the order of the District Forum for return of the amount be complied with within a period of one month from today. The damages in the form of interest shall be liable to be paid till the date of payment by the appellant. We assess the cost of this appeal at Rs. 3,000/-. The cost shall be paid within one month from today. Let copies be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed with costs.