ONIDA SAKA LTD. vs SUTOPA MAJUMDER

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 16.2.1998 directing the opposite parties to make refund of the price of V.C.R. i.e. Rs. 20,200/- along with simple interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 29.9.1993. Besides, the sum of Rs. 500/- was awarded in favour of the complainant as cost of the litigation.

BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that she purchased one Onida V.C.R. on 27.9.1992 from M/s. Steel Palace of Srampore, Hooghly at a price of Rs. 20,200/-. The said set did not function properly from the very beginning and some defects were noticed therein. Resultantly, the V.C.R. went out of order. The complainant sent the same for servicing to opposite party No. 1 at Calcutta on 24.9.1993 within the guarantee period and obtained a receipt for deposit of the same. Thereafter the husband of the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 several times to take delivery of the set but opposite party No. 1 did not deliver the same. The complainant wrote a letter to opposite party No. 2 at New Delhi complaining non-delivery of the set after repair. Opposite party No. 2 sent a reply expressing regret for the inconvenience caused to her and promising to send spare parts to their Calcutta office for the repair of the set. The complainant made several attempts thereafter to get back the set but it yielded no result, so she approached the Forum claiming compensation. The opposite party sent one written objection by post wherein it has been stated that the repair work of the VCR was completed on 1st October, 1993. But the petitioner did not take delivery of the same. So they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The Forum noticed that the opposite parties did not deliver the VCR to the complainant after making necessary repairs. So it observed that the complainant is entitled to get the relief. Feeling aggrieved thereby the opposite parties have appealed.

IT is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the said VCR for a sum of Rs. 20,200/-. IT also not disputed that the said set was deposited with opposite party No. 1 at Calcutta for necessary repairs after it developed defects. The opposite parties submit that the said set was made ready on 1st October but we do not find any paper to show that in fact the opposite parties had ever written to the complainant asking the latter to take delivery of the set. The assertion of the complainant is that her husband visited Calcutta office of opposite party No. 1 several times and every time he was told that the set was not ready for delivery, and this thing continued till 3rd December, 1993. The complainant had written to the Delhi office seeking redress of her grievances and the Delhi office through their letter dated 29th August, 1995, expressed regret for the inconvenience due to mal-functioning of the set. The Delhi office promised to send the required spare parts to their Calcutta Branch office within a short time and requested the complainant to bear with them for the delay and inconvenience. IT is not clear why the complainant approached the Delhi office direct. The complainant has not entered into correspondences with the Calcutta office after December, 1993 claiming delivery of the set after repair. The complainant is represented by her husband during the hearing. On our repeated questions he states that he is not interested in getting back the set since a long time has elapsed after the set was deposited with the Calcutta office. He submits further that they would be satisfied if the price of the set is refunded to them as ordered by the Forum. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we think that the interest of justice would be met if we pass the following order which we hereby do.

THE opposite parties are directed to make refund of the sum of Rs. 20,200/- representing the price of the set within a period of one month from this date. In default of such payment the opposite parties would be liable to pay interest on this amount @ 10% per annum from the date of default till realisation. THE order of the Forum directing the payment of cost of Rs. 500/- is set aside. It may be observed that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to make refund of the amount as mentioned above. With this observation the judgment of the Forum is affirmed subject to the modification indicated above. THE appeal be disposed of. Appeal disposed of.