Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President &
Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member
VICE PRESIDENT, HCL LTD.—Appellant
versus
UMESH CONSULTANCY SERVICES & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 667 of 1996—Decided on 30.4.1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Nemo.
For the Respondents:Mr. Asa Singh, Advocate.
A manufacturer is liable to replace a defective product under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DEFECTIVE PHOTOCOPIER MACHINE - SECTION 14 - REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE MACHINE - INTEREST ON AMOUNT PAID - BALANCE PRICE TO BE PAID BY COMPLAINANT.
Fact of the Case:
A defective photocopier machine was purchased by the complainant from the dealer, who had paid the full price to the manufacturer. Despite repeated complaints, the defect could not be rectified. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which directed the manufacturer to replace the machine and pay interest on the amount paid by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the photocopier machine was defective from the beginning and that the manufacturer was liable to replace it. The court also found that the complainant was liable to pay the balance price of the machine to the dealer.
Issues: Whether the manufacturer was liable to replace the defective machine.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the manufacturer was liable to replace the defective machine under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, which provides for the replacement of defective goods.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the manufacturer and partly allowed the appeal filed by the dealer. The court directed the manufacturer to replace the machine and pay interest on the amount paid by the complainant. The court also directed the complainant to pay the balance price of the machine to the dealer.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
