RAJNI BHATIA vs AMTRAK TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

APPELLANT purchased a computer from the respondent No. 1 on 6th March, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 56,000 which started giving trouble from the day one itself. It was replaced on 5th December, 1998. APPELLANT was not satisfied with the replaced computer as it hanged repeatedly. It was repaired on 29.5.1999 but grievance was not redressed. He sent legal notice in January, 2000, still no action was taken. Consequently, appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of cost of computer with interest and compensation.

VIDE impugned order dated 21st April, 2003, the complaint was dismissed on two grounds, firstly being barred by time and secondly that it was not understandable when the computer was not giving satisfactory results in the year 1999, why the complaint was not filed within 1-2 years. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. In our view, both the grounds of dismissing the complaint are not sustainable. In such type of cases, the cause of action is of subsisting nature and continues till the grievance of the consumer is redressed and particularly when consumer serves a legal notice. The limitation starts from serving a legal notice. Further it was not the case where the appellant did not bring his complaint to the notice of the respondent about mal-functioning of replaced machine. Though the defects in the machine were got rectified but still the machine did not function and she served legal notice. When no action was taken she filed the instant complaint.

Quality of any goods sold by a trader is tested on the anvil of definition of ward ''defect'' provided by Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. In such an eventuality there are four options open to the Consumer Forum. First to direct the trader to remove the defect, second is to replace the goods with new goods with same standard and specification free from defect, third is to refund the price to the consumer charged by the trader, and fourth is to pay an amount as compensation for any loss injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the O.P.

IN our view, in case of such kinds of dispute between the consumer and trader, the endeavour should be to end the dispute between them once for all either by ordering refund of cost or by paying compensation. If an order for the replacement of new goods is given, the possibility of new goods being not to the satisfaction of consumer cannot be ruled out and in that event the parties would relegate to another bout of litigation. In the given circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that computer was purchased 8 years back, we deem a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 would meet the ends of justice which shall include the cost of litigation. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

PAYMENT shall be made within one month of the receipt of this order. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal allowed.