MATTHEW M. PULIYEL vs INDIAN GAS CYLINDERS

BRIEFLY the facts are that the Appellant purchased a ''Savior'' Washing Machine from M/s. Lekked Sales Corporation, Bangalore, for an amount of Rs. 8,665/- . The manufacturer of the machine was Indian Gas Cylinders respondent No. 1. Batra Associates respondent No. 2 is a sister concern of respondent No. 1 and they have been entrusted with the repair work of the machines by respondent No. 1.

THE complainant alleges that the washing machine was defective and started giving trouble from the date of purchase. THErefore, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Delhi against the respondents under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as '' the Act'') for refund of the amount. A compromise was arrived at between the parties and on the basis of compromise it was ordered by the District Forum on 31st July, 1990 that the machine be got repaired by the respondent to the satisfaction of the complainant and in case it could not be set right the respondent shall refund the price and take back the machine. It is further alleged that inspite of the efforts of the respondent the machine could not be repaired. Consequently, an application was filed by him under Section 27 of the Act before the District Forum praying that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8,665/- + compensation for the hardship suffered by him. In all he claimed Rs. 20,211/-

The applicant was contested by respondents They inter-alia pleaded that in accordance with the order of the District Forum a mechanic was sent to repair the machine at Quilon and that was repaired by him They denied that the machine was not repaired fully by the mechanic.

THE learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant was to be blamed for purchasing the complicated machine. Consequently, it was not a case of deficiency in ''Service'' and that there was no manufacturing defect in the product. After making the aforesaid observations the Forum dismissed the application. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the machine was not repaired satisfactorily by the respondent and therefore, the appellant in terms of the order dated 31-7-90 was entitled to take refund of the price from respondent No. 1. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that a mechanic was sent to repair the machine from Delhi to Quilon and he repaired the same to the satisfaction of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the refund of the price, if the machine started giving trouble after three weeks.

WE have duly considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. The machine was purchased by the appellant on 3rd Jan. 1986. It started giving trouble within three months after the date of purchase. Thereafter, the appellant wrote 32 letters to the respondent No. 1 and its agents within a period of one year and three months bringing the defects in the machine to their notice. After July 1987, he had been writing to them every fortnight However, respondent No. 1 failed to get 2 the defects in the machine rectified. Having felt tired, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. In the complaint an agreed order was passed which reads as follows :- "Heard parties. Parties agree that the machine shall be set right to the satisfaction of the complainant. In case it cannot be set aside, right the defendant shall pay back the price and take back the machine." From the aforesaid order it is evident that the respondents agreed to get the machine repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is true, that the respondents sent a mechanic to Quilon for repairing the machine, who repaired the same to some extent. However, he was unable to repair the machine to the satisfaction of the complainant. The respondents version that the mechanic fully repaired the machine, does not appear to be true, as no such acknowledgement of the appellant in writing has been produced by the respondents. The learned District Forum in our view did not fully appreciate the matter and blamed the complainant for purchasing the complicated machine. The appellant is a medical man and, it cannot be said that he could not handle the machine properly. It is also relevant to point-out that respondent No. 1 has stopped manufacturing the machine. That further shows that they could not manufacture machine of a good quality. It is true that the respondent had to spend considerable amount in getting the machine repaired but the appellant cannot be allowed to suffer for that reason. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the price of the machine. In proceedings under Section 27 no damages can be granted to the applicant. Consequently we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and direct respondent No. 1 to refund the price of the machine i.e. Rs. 8,865/-, to the appellant within a period of three months. Appeal allowed.