VICE PRESIDENT, HCL LTD. vs UMESH CONSULTANCY SERVICES

THE District Forum, Hoshiarpur vide order dated August 14,1996 allowed the complaint of Umesh Consultancy Services, with the direction to the opposite party No. 1-HCL Ltd. to replace photocopier machine and to pay interest on Rs. 80.000/- @ 12% per annum with effect from June 8,1993 to the complainant qua the dealer-Jaico Computers, Jalandhar City opposite party No. 10. THE complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Hence two appeals before us - No. 667 of 1996 by HCL Ltd. and 674 of 1996 by the dealer Jaico Computers.

IN the appeal filed by Jaico Computers in short the claim of the appellant is for a direction to the complainant to pay the balance price of the machine of Rs. 18,000/-, which the complainant had not paid, but the dealer had made the payment of this amount to the manufacturer. IN the appeal filed by HCL Ltd., the claim is for setting aside the order of the District Forum with respect to replacement of the machine as well as compensation amount in the form of interest awarded against the appellant. Facts are brief - In 1993 Photo-copier Machine was purchased by Umesh Ohricomplainant. The total price of the machine was Rs. 98.000/- and he had paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- at the time of booking of the machine with the dealer. The machine was installed. Immediately thereafter defect occurred in the machine. The correspondence was had by the complainant with the dealer as well as with the manufacturer. Failing to get the defect removed or the machine replaced, the complaint was filed.

Hcl Ltd. took up the stand that the machine was installed after due satisfaction of the complainant and there were not any manufacturing defects. Probably, the complainant did not use stablizer that the defect occurred. Jaico dealer took up the stand that a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was not paid by the complainant and this amount he had forwarded to the manufacturer alongwith the amount deposited by the complainant, that the mechine was installed which was subsequently found to be defective.

AFTER perusal of the material produced before the District Forum, we are of the view that the photo-copier machine was defective from the very beginning and the order for its replacement was justified in the case. Different letters were written by the complainant to HCL Ltd. for removing the defect in the machine and the complainant was being assured. One of such letters written by HCL Ltd. dated August 6,1993 is at page 33 of the record. There are three reports on pages 35 to 39 referring to the defects found in the machine and the attempts being made to set the same right. Report at page 37 indicates that the toner box was defective and such defects are pointed out at page 37 which required replacement of the machine. It was also mentioned that there was defect in the stablizer. The complaint of the complainant of July 7,1993 is at page 41 and other complaint is at page 43. Affidavit of Umesh Ohri makes mentioned that staff members of the HCL Ltd. were unable to | replace the broken parts of the machine or to replace the Servo-Stablizer. Affidavit filed on behalf of the HCL Ltd. by Mr. Thomas is general in nature that the defect occurred on account of want of stablizer. Be that as it may, the evidence produced by the complainant is sufficient to indicate that the machine supplied by the manufacturer was not properly functioning, that the defect continued reoccurring. In such I circumstances, replacement of the machine was only remedy which was granted by the District Forum. The question for consideration in the appeal of Jaico Computers - the dealer deserves to be noticed. According to them a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was contributed by them towards the entire price of the machine as paid to HCL Ltd. There does not appear to be any dispute in this respect, for the simple reason that the District Forum while allowing compensation alongwith interest on Rs. 80,000/- only. It is not the stand of the HCL Ltd. that the entire price has not been paid to them before installation of the machine at the premises of the complainant. No doubt the complainant is entitled to replacement of the machine, but at the same time he is to pay the full price of the machine. Looking from another angle, no counter claim on the part of opposite party could be entertained and the dispute inter se between the opposite parties - dealer and the manufacturer could not be adjudicated in the proceedings of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Although no specific prayer was made in the written statement filed by Jaico Computers - the dealer, however by granting relief under Section 14 of the Act, the matter could be kept in view that the complainant was not to be enriched unlawfully. He could not be supplied new machine without payment of its full price. It is in this view of the matter that the complainant has to be directed to pay the remaining amount of the sale price while getting replacement of the machine.

THE grant of 12% per annum interest on the amount of Rs. 80,000/- for the period the complainant was deprived of the use of the machine is justified in the circumstances of the case and no cogent ground appears to interfere in the matter. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by HCL Limited deserves to be dismissed. THE appeal filed by Jaico Computers - the dealer is partly allowed. THE order of the District Forum is modified as under : HCL Limited - the manufacturer would replace the machine with a new one as directed by the District Forum. THEy will also pay interest on Rs. 80,000/- @ 12% per annum as awarded by the District Forum. THE complainant would deposit a sum of Rs. 18,000/- with the District Forum, the balance price of the machine. Obviously, this amount is not to be paid to HCL Limited, who had already received the entire sale price and this would be paid to Jaico Computers - the dealer. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. THEre will be no order as to costs in these appeal. Appeals disposed of. _______________