1993 Supreme(Bom) 391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Justice G.G. Loney, President M.G. Gavai Mrs. Ellen Dharkar, Member.
M/s. Vannaji Ganeshlal Co.... Complainant.
Versus
Avery India Ltd. ... Opposite-party.
Complaint No. 275 of 1992, decided on 30-8-1993.
A consumer is entitled to a refund of the cost of a defective product and compensation for the loss suffered due to the defective product and the failure of the seller to deliver back the product or provide satisfactory service.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SALE OF DEFECTIVE WEIGHING MACHINE - SECTION 13 - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - CONSUMER COMPLAINT - DEFECTIVE WEIGHING MACHINE - SERVICE CONTRACT - FAILURE TO DELIVER BACK MACHINE - CLAIM FOR REFUND AND COMPENSATION - CONSUMER HELD ENTITLED TO REFUND OF COST OF MACHINE AND SERVICE CHARGES.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased an electronic weighing machine from the opposite party, Avery India Ltd., based on oral representations made by their salesman. The complainant paid for the machine, installation, calibration, and entered into a service contract for its maintenance. The machine was taken back by the opposite party for stamping and calibration but was not returned to the complainant despite repeated requests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had proved the allegations made in the complaint and that the opposite party had failed to deliver back the weighing machine or provide satisfactory service. The court also found that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 48,000 towards the cost of the machine and Rs. 1850 towards service charges.
Issues: Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the cost of the machine and compensation for the loss suffered due to the defective weighing machine and the failure of the opposite party to deliver back the machine or provide satisfactory service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the cost of the machine and service charges as he had suffered a loss due to the defective weighing machine and the failure of the opposite party to deliver back the machine or provide satisfactory service. The court rejected the complainant's claim for other damages such as loss of business, mental tension, and legal advice as there was no material on record to support these claims.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the opposite party was directed to pay the complainant Rs. 48,000 towards the cost of the machine and Rs. 1850 towards service charges within 30 days from the receipt of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. Notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was sent to the opposite party dated 30th March, 1993 which was received by the opposite party. The postal acknowledgement showing the said notice received from the Commission is placed on record. Yet on the date of hearing i.e. on 9-6-1993, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party and therefore, we proceeded exparte against the Opposite Party. The complaint was fixed on 11th August, 1993 for hearing. None appeared for the opposite party on 11-8-1993 and therefore, this commission heard the complainant through Shri F.M. Oswal, Advocate.
3. In view of the fact that there was no denial of the allegations made by the complainant in this complaint we hold that the complainant has proved allegations made in his complaint. The complainant also has placed on record the copy of the invoice and the correspondence. As per the allegations made by the complainant, the weighing scale which was taken back by the opposite party for stamping and calibration from the Weights Measures Department has not been returned to him. The complainant has also proved his allegations that despite his payment of Rs. 1850 towards the service charges, no service was rendered to him satisfactorily. The complainant alleged that as a result of negligent in the service of the opposite party he has been put to loss of Rs. 2,79,250.
4. The complainant alleged that he is entitled to receive the cost of machine amount to Rs. 48,000/- and Rs. 1850/- towards service charges which he had paid to opposite party on 10-10-1990. The complainant has placed on recor