Videocon International Ltd. vs Anil kumar

FOR having sold a defective automatic washing machine the appellant has been, vide its order dated 1.10.2002 passed, by the District FORum directed to refund the cost of Rs. 9,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation besides Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.

THE impugned order being an ex parte order has been assailed through this appeal firstly, on the ground that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard and secondly, that the respondent had taken contradictory stand inasmuch as that after washing machine developed glitches he made a complaint which was duly attended to and, subsequently, the machine was changed by another machine and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part. However, appellant has also challenged the legality of awarding of interest by the District Forum We have perused the impugned order and find that the defect pointed out by the respondent could not be rectified and, therefore, a second machine was given to the respondent in lieu of old machine but the new machine did not function at all. As regards the grievance of the appellant as to the award of interest which is justified, as interest is awarded only where there are equitable grounds particularly when there is no such term of contract between the parties.

We have taken a view that wherever deposits are made towards the consideration of flat or plot or FDRs etc. interest is awardable but where the goods have been purchased and are found defective, interest may not be awarded. In lieu of interest a lump sum compensation should be awarded as provided by Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also a settled law if an interest is awarded in such type of cases by way of compensation, a separate compensation cannot be awarded.

IN such type of cases we have taken a consistent view that the cost of the defective goods should be refunded as the replacement of a defective goods by a new goods which should be defective free, is not feasible solution as the possibility of new goods also being not defective or not being upto the satisfaction of the consumer cannot be ruled out and such an order can give rise to second bout of litigation between the parties which should always be avoided. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by setting aside the interest and maintain rest of the order.

PAYMENT shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, date of receipt of this order. 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.

COPY be sent to all the District Fora. Appeal partly allowed.