Madhubhai R Patel vs State Bank Of India Head Office Ahmedabad

THE order dated 8.9.95 passed in CDF Case No. 2509/ 94 by the District Forum, Calcutta is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

BY the said impugned order, the learned District Forum rejected the review application dated 16.6.95 of the complainant for refund of the sum of Rs. 4,460/ - together with other reliefs, modifying the earlier order dated 12.6.95 whereby the learned District Forum, Calcutta directed the opposite parties to repair the geysar by replacing the tank of the same, but the complainant/ appellant was not agreeable to such repairing to be made by the opposite parties having found that the geysar has inherent manufacturing defect and could not operate it since beginning and resorted to his original prayer for refund of value of Rs. 4,460/ - together with interest and compensation etc. and more so that due to urgency, the complainant/appellant purchased a second geysar from Venus to keep his health fit as per medical advise, hence this appeal. Having heard the learned Counsels of both the sides and upon perusals of the materials on record, if appears that the geysar purchased by the complainant/appellant from the opposite parties/respondents had inherent manufacturing defect from the very beginning and during the subsistance of the guarantee period of the geysar, the complainant/appellant lodged many complaints to the opposite party/respondent for that the respondents attended several times to set the geysar in perfect workable condition. The said repeated attempts did not prove much fruitful even on repairing made on 9.5.94 which was well within the guarantee period covered upto 10.5.94. Hence, it cannot be said that the complaint about the inherent mechanical defect of the geysar was alleged of after expiry of the guarantee period. It is also to be considered that due to inherent mechanical defect, the geysar purchased from the opposite parties/respondents could not give desired service to the complainant/ appellant for which he had to purchase a second one on 5.10.94 because of the urgency in order to keep the appellants health fit as per medical advice, particularly, in view of the defunct geysar ''Super Hot'' supplied by the opposite parties/respondents and thus it was proved by repeated repairs made to the geysar during warranty period by the opposite party/respondent that the geysar had inherent defective. In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim for refund of value of the geysar is an appropriate and reasonable.

WE , therefore allow the appeal and set aside both the orders dated 12.6.5 and 8.9.95 passed in CDF Case No. 2509/94 by the District Forum, Calcutta and the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest and direct the opposite parties/respondents to forthwith refund the value of Rs. 4,460/ - together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum effective from June, 1993 until payment after taking back the geysar from the complainant/appellant. The award of interest will compensate the losses suffered by the complainant/appellant as such we are not inclined to award any further compensation as claimed by the complainant/appellant.

WE make no order as to the cost. Appeal allowed.