OFFICER IN-CHARGE, BPL LTD. vs SRI K.K. GOPINATH

THIS appeal is by the 2nd opposite party against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum. According to the complainant, he purchased a BPL Sanyo Vacuum Cleaner Dust Buster with its attachment spray unit etc. from BPL Limited (Home Delivery) on 14.10.1994 for a sum of Rs. 4,300/-. On 25.12.1994, the complainant noticed low efficiency in its functioning and complete break-down in spray attachment. Because of that the Vacuum Cleaner was not used from 25.12.1994. The complainant reported the matter to the Service Centre of BPL Company on 4.1.1995, 6.2.1995, 10.2.1995 and 1.5.1995 for setting right the unit or to replace it or refund the money. Inspite of effecting service by the authorised service agent of BPL Company the Set did not become alright. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties the dealer and the manufacturer to repay the cost of the vacuum cleaner together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realisation and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant.

THE opposite parties contended that within the warranty period whenever the complainant complained about the Unit it was repaired. THE damage had been caused to the vacuum cleaner due to mishandling. THE vacuum cleaner was working perfectly to the entire satisfaction of the complainant after the said repair. THE 1st opposite party undertook to demonstrate the good working condition of the vacuum cleaner before the District Forum. THEre was no unfair trade practice. THErefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence, held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party manufacturer of the vacuum cleaner and there was no fault on the part of the 1st opposite party who was the authorised service agent. In the result, it passed an order directing the 2nd opposite party to refund the cost price of the vacuum cleaner viz., Rs. 4,300/- with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realisation and also Rs. 500/- as costs.

Now in the appeal, after hearing both sides and on going through the relevant records, we find no compelling reason to interfere with the finding and the order of the District Forum. It is seen from the records that after the purchase of the vacuum cleaner the complainant has been reporting to the opposite parties about the defects in it and the opposite parties have also worked on it on some occasions. Lastly the complainant has sent a letter Ex. A-7 dated 1.5.1995 stating that still there was defect in the spray unit and if it was not set right the sale price should be refunded. To this letter, admittedly there was no reply from the opposite parties. This would indicate that even after repair by the opposite parties, the defects continued. As stated above, on some occasions the opposite parties had rectified the defects. These circumstances indicate that there must be some manufacturing defect in the material. Thus considering, it appears to us that it is quite correct that the District Forum has ordered refund of the cost price of the material with interest as stated above. However, we find that no order has been passed with regard to the return of the vacuum cleaner.

WE now order that on return of the vacuum cleaner by the complainant the order of the District Forum will be complied with by the 2nd opposite party. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.