PRAVEEN SURI vs ASHISH WADHERA

RESPONDENT purchased a currency counting machine for cost of Rs. 8,900 from the appellant. The machine did not work properly. It was sent for repair a number of times but to no effect. There was a warranty for 12 months from the date of instalment. In spite of the manufacturer M/s. A. G. Japan Ltd. having instructed the appellant to refund the cost of the machine to the respondent, appellant did not refund the same. Consequently, respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.

THE appellant was proceeded ex parte as it did not put appearance inspite of service of notice. While allowing the complaint, the District Forum vide its order dated 15. 9. 2000 directed the appellant to refund the full amount of Rs. 8,900 along with the interest @ 15% w. e. f. 15. 9. 1998 and Rs. 500 as cost of proceedings. Through this appeal the impugned order has been challenged firstly, that no opportunity was given to the appellant to put up his version and secondly, that the respondent has not produced any documents as to the purchase of machine from it and payment of Rs. 8,900 and thirdly, that the District Forum has erred in not ordering the respondent to return the machine in case refund was to be paid.

We have perused the impugned order and do not find any merit in the appeal inasmuch as that the purchase of the machinery has been half-heartedly disputed by the appellant as it has taken contradictory plea. On the one hand, it has stated that the machine was not purchased from it while on the other hand, it has taken the plea that the District Forum should have ordered for return of the machine in case price was to be refunded. Further, Exhibit CW 1/5 demonstrates that the manufacturer had instructed the appellant to refund the amount.

HOWEVER, we deem it proper to award compensation of Rs. 2,500 in lieu of interest as interest is awardable if there are equitable grounds or there is such a term of contract between the parties as to the liability of the service provider to pay the interest. At the same time we direct the respondent to return the machine. We have taken a view that interest may be awarded in those cases where the deposits are made for a consideration and not in those cases where the goods are sold or utilized by the respondent. In terms of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Forum can order the service provider to do any of the following four: (i) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (ii) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (iii) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (iv) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party.

IN this case we have not only asked the appellant to refund the cost but also have awarded compensation and also to return the machine on receipt of the payment. Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of its receipt. Bank Guarantee/fdr, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room. Appeal disposed.