A consumer is entitled to get a defect-free product and if the product is found to be defective, the consumer is entitled to remedies such as repair, replacement, or refund.

Mr. K.R. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Member— The complaint, in brief, as follows : —

For their building at Gandhi nagar, Bangalore, the complainant placed orders in the year 1985 with the respondent, then known as Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd., for an elevator to be installed and commissioned thereat. They paid Rs. 1,36,860/- being the cost of the elevator and the respondent supplied and installed the elevator in the year 1987. The complainant also entered into a service contract with the respondent every year on payment of the required amount. The elevator was meant to service the ground and five floors of the building but as the fifth floor is not occupied, it is being used only to service four floors. Right from the inception the elevator is giving problems with frequent failures and breakdowns inspite of which the complainant has been paying the maintenance charges to the respondent. At the time of installation, the respondent had promised the complainant that the elevator would serve a life time and only maintenance contract has to be executed every year. But during 1992, the respondent failed to rectify the defect and wrote to the complainant stating that the existing controller was old system and obsolete and asked the complainant to get the elevator modified and replaced by paying a sum of Rs. 66,150/- or in the alternative to get a new elevator installed by paying Rs. 2,07,500/-. Again on 1.1.1993, the respondent wrote to the complainant that the elevator should not be operated between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and from 3.00 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 17-2-1993, the respondent have written to the complainant that the lift should be modernized at a cost of Rs. 77,500/-. They have also refused to review the service contract. The respondent have again on 27.2.1993 written to the complainant insisting that the lift be modernized.

2. The complainant is being put to hardship and financial loss as his tenants have refused to pay rents and maintenance charges.

3. He, therefore, prays that the respondent be directed to replace the lift with a new one and pay damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- and costs.

The respondent has been served with notice of the complaint. He has not filed his written version of the case and has also remained absent from the hearings.

5. One of the partners of the complainant firm has filed his affidavit, swearing to the averments in the complaint, which are narrated above.

6. The issues that arise for consideration are : —

(1) Whether there is any defect in the goods, that is the lift, supplied by the respondent to the complainant?

(2) If so, what are the reliefs that the complainants are entitled to?

7. Issue No. 1 : — From the facts sworn to in the affidavit which have not been disputed by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent installed a lift at the building of the complainant in the year 1987 and even though it has not been working to full capacity, it is giving trouble right from the beginning and had to be serviced and repaired frequently by the respondent. The letter of the respondent dated 8.5.1992 shows that the respondent has admitted that the controller of the lift is of old system which is obsolete now. In the said letter, the respondent has made some proposals to supply and fix a new controller and to replace the winding unit in order to up date the performance of the unit. The charges for these replacements are given as Rs. 2,07,500/-. It is really surprising, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant, that the lift which was installed in the year 1987 at a cost of Rs. 1,36,860/- should become obsolete and should require material alterations costing Rs. 2,07,500/- within less than 5 years from that date apart from undergoing a series of repairs in the meanwhile. There is another letter dated 17.2.1993 by the respondent to the complainant in which the respondent has sent an invoice for Rs. 77,500/ towards modernization of lift. The respondent has admitted in this letter that the existi