ONIDA SAKA LIMITED vs S.C.JAIN

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.1.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 637/1996.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of Rs. 20,900/- as cost of the VCR and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and expenses. According to the complainant he purchased a VCR for a sum of Rs. 20,900/- from opposite party No. 3 in Aligarh who was the authorised dealer of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Within three months of its purchase, the VCR became defective and the opposite party was contacted. It was checked by the Engineer of the opposite party No. 3 on 9.2.1992 and subsequently on 21.2.1992 and 2.3.1992 and 11.5.1992, but the defects could not be removed. THE VCR was thereafter replaced. According to the complainant the VCR which was replaced was also a defective one and did not work properly. It was also checked by the Engineer and was repaired but the defects could not be removed. THEreafter it was sent to the Service Centre at Delhi and was received back unrepaired on 15.9.1995. A sum of Rs. 500/- was charged from the complainant. The opposite party admitted that the original VCR was replaced when it could not be repaired. The second VCR which was given was sent back for repairs at Delhi and the repairs were carried out by the Engineers. It is alleged that the complaint is barred by time.

The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that the amount of VCR is to be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, M/s. Onida has come in appeal and have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. T.N. Misra, and learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. T.N. Saxena.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the appellant the first VCR which was purchased by the complainant could not be repaired. It has also been admitted that the defects in the second VCR could not be rectified. The learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that when the defects could not be repaired of the second VCR also, the the price of the VCR should be returned back to the complainant. We have gone through the judgment of the learned District Forum and find that the VCR could not be repaired even when it was sent to the Service Centre at Delhi. Thus we find that the VCR which was sold to the complainant was a defective piece whose defects could not be remedied even at centralised Service Centre at Delhi. When the second VCR could not be repaired even at New Delhi, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the VCR had some manufacturing defects which could not be repaired by the Service Engineer of the appellant. In these circumstances the appellant is bound to return the cost of the VCR as held by the learned District Forum. There is no escape from this liability. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complaint is barred by time and no cognizance of it can be taken. We may mentioned that the first VCR was purchased on 15.11.1991. When it could not be repaired, it was replaced on 2.6.1992. It was under repairs for a length of time and finally it was returned unrepaired by the Service Centre at New Delhi. The VCR was returned back unrepaired on 15.9.1995 which is clear from the receipts. As the VCR was returned on 15.9.1995 the period of limitation will start to run from this date. The complaint was filed in the year 1996 within one year of the return of the VCR. The period of limitation in such cases is two years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint was filed after the period of limitation. Thus the complaint is not barred by limitation and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order

THE appeal is dismised with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed.

LET compliance be made within six weeks of the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint dismissed with costs.