Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President &
Mrs. Davinder Kaur Bhamrah, Member
M/S. RELIANCE ENGINEERING WORKS—Appellant
versus
RENU SHARMA—Respondent
Appeal No. 1322 of 1998—Decided on 4.10.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate.
In the case of a defective machine, refund of the price is the appropriate remedy when replacement is not feasible.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 14(1) - REPLACEMENT OR REFUND OF DEFECTIVE MACHINE - REFUND OF PRICE IS APPROPRIATE REMEDY WHEN REPLACEMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a machine from the opposite party for Rs. 1,50,000/-. Despite several attempts by the opposite party to rectify defects in the machine, it remained non-functional. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the price, interest, and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the price of the machine with interest, freight, installation charges, repair charges, compensation, and litigation costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. Whether the complainant was a consumer. 3. Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the machine. 4. Whether replacement or refund of the price was the appropriate remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. 2. The complainant was a consumer as she had purchased the machine for personal use. 3. There was a manufacturing defect in the machine as it did not work despite several attempts to rectify the defects. 4. In the facts of the case, refund of the price was the appropriate remedy as replacement of the machine would not serve any useful purpose.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether replacement of the machine or refund of its price is the appropriate remedy to be provided to the complainant. The appeal has been filed by the opposite party M/s. Reliance Engineering Works, Chandigarh challenging order of District Forum, Ferozepur dated September 29, 1998 whereby direction was given to the appellant to refund amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 18% p.a. interest thereon from April 20, 1996 till realisation and also to refund Rs. 4,150/- (Rs. 2,200/- freight + Rs. 1,700/- installation charges + Rs. 250/- repair charges). Further direction was given to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant Renu Sharma. Since the order was passed in the absence of the appellant and the appellant came to know on December 4, 1998 about the passing of the aforesaid order and after getting copy thereto the present appeal was filed on December 23, 1998, the appeal is, therefore, considered to be within time
2. With broad facts, there is no much dispute. Renu Sharma, the complainant after taking loan of Rs. 95,000/- from Canara Bank at Abohar under Prime Minister Jawahar Rojgar Yojna placed an order for supply of Automobile Softy Cone Plant and Bakery Making Machine on the opposite party, manufacturer of such machines. Manjit Singh of the opposite party visited Abohar to finalise the terms and conditions of sale. Bank draft of Rs. 95,000/- was handed over at Abohar on April 12, 1996 and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- in cash was paid at Abohar. To transporter Jai Mata Union (Regd.), freight of Rs. 2,200/- was paid by the complainant to the driver of the canter/truck carrying the machine. The opposite party sent three persons there to instal the machine. A total sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- was stated to have been aid vide cash memo dated April 20, 1996 for Rs. 95,000/- and bill dated April 20, 1996 for Rs. 33,000/- for the aforesaid machinery, value of which was Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since major defect was in the machinery, it did not work inspite of best efforts made by the representatives of the opposite party. A sum of Rs. 1,700/- were charged for installation of the machinery. Such defects were pointed out in the report dated May 6, 1996. Thereafter on May 19, 1996, two other persons were deputed by the opposite party who again submitted their report after charging Rs. 250/- from the complainant that there was fault in the machinery. Inspite of all that, the faults in the machinery were not removed that ultimately District Forum was approached with the complaint. In the reply furnished by the opposite parties, several pleas were taken including the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint and that the complainant was not a consumer. There was no cause of action for filing the complaint. A sum of Rs. 55,000/- was stated to be still due from the complainant against the price of the machine. On merits, the sale of the machine was admitted. Sending of two bills as aforesaid was also admitted. The machine was stated to be functioning and the complaint was filed in order to avoid payment of balance amount of Rs. 55,000/-. On the evidence led by the parties, the complaint was allowed holding that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant was a consumer. There was manufacturing defect in the machine which was not working and directions to pay the amount as aforesaid were given.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no opportunity of hearing arguments was afforded by the District Forum as contemplated under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act and the impugned order should be set aside on that ground alone. We find no merit in this contention. We have gone through the proceedings of the case and find that the complaint was hotly contested on different dates fixed in the case. The complainant was allowed to be cross-examined. A stage cam
