H.C.L. LIMITED vs Union of India

A Complaint No. 140/94 was filed before District Consumer Forum, Jhansi, at the behest of Union of India through Telecom Divisional Engineer, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, alleging that photo-copier machine purchased from and supplied by H.C.L. on 16.1.1993 was not working properly, had technical defects, information was conveyed and since no action was taken, registration letter was sent which also was not attended to. One Sri D.C. Gupta of H.C.L. approached the complainant to have a service contract for three years i.e., from 17.1.1994 to 16.1.1997 for which a sum of Rs. 16,000/- was paid as service charges, even service was not properly done and in spite of letters written the machine was not attended to. Therefore, looking to the constant apathy on the part of H.C.L. the aforesaid complaint was filed. The complaint has been contested by H.C.L. and its other officials who have been arrayed as opposite parties in the complaint.

THE President of the District Forum vide order dated 10.3.1997 has directed that "the opposite parties are hereby directed to replace the photo-copier machine in question with a similar machine of same make having no defects, within a period of two months from today. THE complainant shall get from the O.Ps. a sum of Rs. 25,000/- only (Rs. twenty-five thousand only) as compensation, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) as expenses incurred by the complainant, and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) as costs of this proceeding within the same period of two months". The learned Member of the District Forum who formed the Bench with the President did not concur with the order of the President and has directed vide order dated 10.3.1997 that "Hindi Matter omitted"

Aggrieved by both the orders M/s. H.C.L. and its officials have filed Appeal No. 511 of 1997 whereas the complainant aggrieved by the order of the learned Member has filed Appeal No. 507 of 1997.

BOTH the appeals have been consolidated for hearing. Mr. B.S. Banthia and Mr. A.K. Misra learned Counsel for H.C.L. and Mr. Anil Kumar learned Counsel for complainant in the appeals have been heard at length. The only issue rightly canvassed by the Counsel is whether there was deficiency of service on the part of H.C.L. It was highlighted by the learned Counsel for H.C.L. and its officials that the warranty period was already over when the complainant went with the complaint before District Forum. He further highlighted that had there been any defect in the machine the complainant would have been the last person to enter into maintenance service contract with H.C.L.

MR. Anil Kumar argued that telephonic complaint was made followed by registered letter and since both these remained unattended the preparation of the complaint and consultation of Lawyer took some time and warranty period has run out. There is no delay in filing of the complaint and advantage cannot be taken of the fact that warranty has expired particularly because the complainant believing on the assurance of H.C.L. and its officials entered into a service contract. He, therefore, argued that the learned Member has erred in deferring from the judgment and conclusions arrived at by the President which should be accepted. Hence complainant''s appeal should be allowed. It was rightly emphasized that there is no evidence on record indicating that machine did not work. It is impossible to believe that the complainant should have entered into a maintenance contract if the machine has not worked. Therefore, it is hereby held that the machine was used by the complainant for which maintenance contract was entered into for the period 1994 to 1997. The complaint was obviously filed just when the maintenance contract became operative. It took some time to proceed in the District Forum and parties'' evidence as available in the record of appeals indicates that while on the one hand the complainant alleges total absence of any maintenance effort on the part of H.C.L. It is contended by H.C.L. and its officials on the other that maintenance contract was fulfilled. A categorical finding has been arrived by the President as well as member that there has been complete disregard to the maintenance contract by H.C.L. Nothing could be shown from the record to upset the aforesaid finding. However, there is force in the argument of Mr. Misra that the machine was working and its replacement was not required and to that extent the order of the President is illegal.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion the appeal of the complainant being Appeal No. 507/97 is dismissed. The appeal of H.C.L. being Appeal No. 511/97 is partly allowed. Both the appeals are disposed of with the following directions: 1. H.C.L. Limited shall pay Rs. 16,000/- with 6% interest to the complainant within two months. 2. If there be any defect in the machine HCL Limited shall correct it within another two months. 3. Parties will bear their own cost. The original judgment shall be kept in the record of Appeal No. 511/1997 and certified copy whereof shall be kept in the record of Appeal No. 507/1997 which shall also be governed by this judgment.

Appeal No. 507/1997 dismissed. Appeal No. 511/1997 partly allowed.