ELECTRONS And LASERS (P) LTD. vs PROMILLA MENON

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Promilla Menon and her daughter Nalini Menon, hereinafter referred to as complainants purchased one inverter set alongwith four 12V batteries from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 26,280/-. The amount was paid by three cheques of Rs. 5,000/- dated 10.6.93, Rs. 5,280/- dated 15.6.93 and Rs. 16,000/- dated 16.6.93. After installation, the set caught fire. Fortunately the main switch was switched off in time so that no damage could be caused to the household effects, or the inmates. The OPs were informed and they replaced the set with a new one on 18.6.93. While the new set was being installed, again the same caught fire and a third set was brought for replacement, the next day. The third set also met the same fate while, it was being tested for installation. The complainants did not want to take any further risk and, therefore, conveyed to the OP that they were not interested in going in for the same type of inverter. They wanted the money to be refunded. The OP, however, failed to do so. The complainants served a legal notice on 30.6.93 and filed the present complaint before the District Forum. The OPs failed to contest. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to refund Rs. 26,280/- alongwith 15% interest, per annum, besides Rs. 2,000/- on account of costs and compensation. Aggrieved by the order, the OP have preferred this appeal.

NONE appeared for the parties when the appeal was called on for hearing. Later on, the Counsel for respondents appeared and he was asked to submit a brief note on arguments if so advised. He failed to appear thereafter. We have gone through the records. On behalf of the respondents, parawise reply to the grounds of appeal have been filed. The first question is whether the appeal is within limitation. The appellant received a certified copy of the order on 1.12.94. The present appeal was filed on 10.1.95 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The ground stated in the application is that the appellant handed over papers for filing the appeal to their Advocate on 30.12.94, their Advocate Mr. Vijay Gupta, however, remained confined to bed on account of viral fever for about ten days and hence the delay. It is a settled law that limitation for the purposes of delay is reckoned from the day of communication of certified copy of the order to the appellant. It is further settled law that a party should not be made to suffer for the fault, if any, on the part of his Counsel. The application for condonation is supported by affidavit of Mr. Y.P. Singh, Director of the appellant Company. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances brought on record, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

On merits, the case of the appellant is that the appellant had supplied only one inverter of 1KVA to the respondents for Rs. 16,000/-. Four Lead Acid batteries were purchased by the complainant for the Rs. 10,280/- from Sawhney Batteries, New Delhi. In other words, according to the appellants, they had nothing to do with the batteries and were neither liable for the purchase of the batteries nor for refunding their price. There is no merit in this contention. In the reply, the respondents have given the particulars of three cheques by which the total amount of Rs. 26,280/- had been paid. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that complainants had purchased inverter from the appellants and the Lead Acid Batteries from another person.

IT has next been stated in the appeal that the inverter supplied was for a single phase of electric connection and it was working properly at the time of installation. Later on according to the appellant, all three phase appeared to have been inter-connected which resulted in bum-out of the invertor. This has been categorically controverted in the reply. The person who does not know the technical background would not intermeddle with electric gadgets, and it is against the probability of the case that the respondents got interconnected the three phase even though the invertor was supposed to be used on a single phase. Lastly, it has been stated by the appellant that two sets of invertor are lying with the respondents and they be directed to return the same to the appellants. In reply it has been stated by the respondents that they are in possession of only one unit piece of invertor set. The appellant had taken away two other sets as they caught fire and only the last invertor set delivered to the respondents is still lying at their premises.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we find ourselves in the agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the District FORum and accordingly dismiss the appeal with a further direction that the appellant may collect one set of invertor lying with the respondents and if there is any difficulty in delivery of the same may obtain delivery of the said set by appropriate proceedings u/Section 27. The amount directed by the DF shall, however, be paid within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no Order as to costs insofar as appeal is concerned. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as to the District FORum. Appeal dismissed.