KORES INDIA LTD vs Sudha Diwan

THE appellant is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of photocopier machine. Vide impugned order dated 2.8.2003, it has been directed to refund Rs. 97,500 towards the cost of the machine sold to the respondent as it was found to be defective from day one and also ordered to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 13.2.1996 till the date of payment of Rs. 15,000 as compensation besides Rs. 100 as cost of litigation.

THROUGH this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order firstly on the ground that the complaint was time -barred and secondly that there was no evidence on record that the machine in question had any manufacturing defect as there was minor defect of copy quality by using substandard paper, etc. The appellant has also relied upon the service report of its mechanic showing that the aforesaid defects were rectified and the machine was functioning properly. On the contrary, the respondent has produced several documents showing that machine was attended to by the mechanic of the appellant on as many as 11 occasions and several defects were pointed out. Some of these defects were as under: : Light background of the copies. : Found poor quality due to the print missing somewhere on copy. : Somewhile copy is coming with a black strip in the rear side because the screw of the mirror base -B drive double pully. : Found poor copy quality due to T.F. Corena Cell. : Copy quality and paper feed problem. : Maintenance indicating background on copies. : Background over copier paper jamming. : Maintenance indicating background over copier : Found light patches copy. : Found optics dirty. No tonner as is result developer coming on copy. : Copy quality problem (computer type).

The machine was purchased on 27.6.96. It is still lying with the respondent. The aforesaid defects pointed out in the machine and shown in the job card of the mechanic demonstrate that the machine was defective and of sub -standard quality as it was not giving desired results. As per Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

SINCE the respondent is no longer interested in retaining the machine, no useful purpose will be served to compel the respondent to operate the machine which is not giving the desired result and has developed defects right from the beginning as on 11 occasions in the short duration of four months, the mechanic was sent to rectify the defect.

WITH regard to the allegation that the complaint was time -barred, we do not find any force as the last communication with the respondent to the appellant for replacement of the machine or taking it back was dated 8.7.97, the cause of action arose from this date, the complaint was filed in the month of March, 1998 which was well within the prescribed period of two years. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we feel inclined to allow the appeal, with directions to refund the amount but modify the impugned order by waiving the interest as in such cases, interest is not awarded and only compensation is awarded for the loss or injury suffered by the consumer in terms of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The compensation awarded by the District Forum and the cost of litigation is hereby maintained. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

THE appeal is disposed of in above terms. The above payments shall be paid within one month of the receipt of this order.

4. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal disposed of. -