Consumer rights include the right to seek refund for defective products and the court may order refund with interest if the delay in replacement causes inconvenience to the consumer.

R.G. Desai, President—This appeal is directed against the Order dated 21.8.1990 passed by the District Forum, Mysore in Complaint No. CPA/MD/55/90-91 on its file.

It arises in this way:

2. The respondent herein purchased a washing machine for Rs. 3,200/- from the appellant on 19.12.1989 and he found it to be defective within a month or two thereafter. Hence he could not use the washing machine. He intimate the said fact to the appellant on 14.4.1990. But he did not care to get it repaired. He was obliged to engage a servant for washing the clothes by paying Rs. 60/- per month. Hence he filed a complaint before the District Forum. Mysore for replacement of the machine or refund of the cost price with interest. The appellant wrote to the District Forum, stating that he had written a letter to Kaysons Enterprises from whom he had purchased the washing machine about the defective machine of the respondent and that he had been asked to replace the old machine with a new one.

On the date of hearing, the appellant remained absent. The District Forum recorded the evidence of the complainant and on the material placed before it, the District Forum reached the conclusion that the washing machine was defective and in view of the delay caused by the opposite party in not replacing the washing machine and also in view of the apprehension of the complainant that some undesirable consequences may happen if he was asked to take the replacement now, it is proper to order refund of the cost price to the complainant. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to refund a sum of Rs. 3,200/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 19.12.1989 till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal by the opponent.

3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing today, neither the appellant nor his Counsel was present. We heard the respondent and perused the records of the District Forum.

4. The. fact that the machine is defective has been satisfactorily established by the unchallenged testimony of the complainant and the said fact is also not disputed by the appellant. The only point urged by the appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal is that the District Forum should have ordered replacement of the machine instead of ordering repayment of the cost price. Exhibit P-3 shows that the complainant had returned the washing machine to the appellant on 18.5.1990 for replacement. He has stated on oath that the appellant failed to replace the washing machine. The respondent states that till today he has not received the replacement or the assurance from the appellant regarding replacement. In ' view of the delay caused by the appellant in providing replacement, we think the order passed by the District Forum regarding the refund of the cost price together with interest is proper.

5. In the Result, the Appeal is dismissed and the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 100/- towards costs of this appeal to the respondent.

Appeal dismissed.