H.C.L. LTD. vs MOHAN LAL MIRI

THIS appeal has arisen from order dated 10.3.1997 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur in Complaint Case No. 16/ 1995.

THE facts of the case in brief are that respondent had purchased one photocopy machine No. 85205-40070/08/52005 on 22.12.1994 by availing the loan facility of Rs. 92,000/- from Antya Vyavsai Nigam Ltd. THE above photocopier machine was installed by the engineer of appellant at Bhaisma on 22.12.1994. Respondent shifted the machine allegedly on the advice of appellant (though denied by appellant) to Balco Korba. In his complaint before District Forum, respondent claimed that machine did not work properly from the first day and he made several complaints verbally and on telephone to appellant office in Bilaspur. When the machine could not be repaired, respondent prayed before the District Forum to compensate him for the loss suffered and either to replace the machine or refund the cost with interest. In their reply before the District Forum the appellant, who was opposite party in District Forum, denied the allegation, that shifting from Bhaisma village was suggested by them. They also denied that any complaint was to them verbally or by telephone to their office in Bilaspur. They further stated that they were not responsible for replacing part or the machine after warranty period expired on 22.3.1995. Above denials are contained in the affidavit filed by Shri N. Shamugam resident engineer of the appellant on 29.10.1996. Appellant opposite party also denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the photocopier machine.

District Forum after hearing both the parties, on the basis of the affidavit of one expert that machine had manufacturing defect and, therefore, passed the impugned order, which is under appeal now.

IN the appeal memo the appellant has challenged the order on the grounds that there was no complaint about the photocopier machine during currency of warranty period. After expiry of warranty on 22.3.1995 were not obliged to replace the machine or replace part free of costs. They also questioned the competence of the so- called expert whose opinion has been relied upon by District Forum. Appellant averred that this so-called expert had no qualification to give opinion about photocopier machine as his expertise was about xerox machine. The technologies involved are different. They also urged that District Forum did not fix date for evidence and hence they could not rebuilt the evidence of expert and were thus denied opportunity to defend themselves. They stated that the opinion of the so-called expert was in Hindi language and hence appellant''s engineer could not rebuilt it. These are the main averments amongst lengthy grounds mentioned in appeal. We heard Counsel for both the parties. Counsel for appellant agreed to replace the old machine by a new one and prayed that other reliefs given may be considered and the order of District Forum be set-aside.

WE have perused the record of the case. Record shows that appellant, who was opposite party, was given sufficient time to rebuilt the evidence of the expert put forward by complainant. Therefore his argument put forward in appeal is an afterthought and we cannot accept it. Having said this, we must add that respondent who was complainant in District Forum was also not able to demonstrate that there was any defect in the machine prior to expiry of warranty period. As such the appellant could not be held responsible or under any obligation to replace the machine or replace the part. WE are therefore unable to agree with the view taken by District Forum that machine had manufacturing defect. WE have all along taken a view in such cases that we shall not order replacement of old machine by new but if convinced about repairs not being done satisfactorily, we could order it to be done to entire satisfaction of complainant. Complainant shall however, pay for the parts replaced. WE take a similar view in this case also and since appellant himself has offered to replace the old machine by a new one of same make and model, we feel the ends of justice will be met by our ordering appellant to do so within a month to the satisfaction of respondent. We shall now consider other reliefs such as compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- given by the District Forum to the complainant. In our opinion, the reason given by District Forum for award of compensation and costs are not cogent on the basis of record. We are hot convinced that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant. Also respondent has no documentary proof of the photo copying machine not being attended to by appellant. Therefore, we do not think a proper case has been made for awarding such huge compensation and penal costs. We, therefore, do not agree and do not consider it justifiable to award any compensation at all. Costs awarded should also be normal and not penal that is Rs. 500/- instead of Rs. 2,000/-. In the context of discussion in preceding paragraph the appeal succeeds partially and is allowed to the extent as shown below. Order dated 10.3.1997 of District Forum, Bilaspur is modified to the extent that appellant shall replace the old machine by a new one of same quality and model within a month of this order. Appellant will also pay Rs. 500/- as proceedings cost including Counsel fees to the respondent. No order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed.