A.K. Bhattacharji, President - This is an appeal against an order of the Calcutta District Forum dismissing a prayer for refund of the price or the replacement of a watch which was purchased by the complainant-appellant from the O.P. respondent. It appears that the complainant purchased a Timex Watch(Quartz) on 19-8-1994 with two years' guarantee from the O.P. respondent. The watch became out of order thrice during the guarantee period and the complainant had approached the O.P. thrice that is on 19-51995. 19-9-1995 and 20-6-1996 for repair of the watch. On the first occasion the battery was replaced as the same was not working. On the second occasion servicing was done free of charge and on the third occasion it was found that the battery was weak and it was to be replaced by a new battery push button and crown. On the above facts the complainant had alleged that the watch was defective and hence it prayed for refund of the price or for replacement of the watch.

2. The learned District Forum held that the replacement of the battery was not covered by the warranty and that there was actually no deficiency of service or of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.-respondent. It. there-fore ordered that the O.P. shall replace the spares of the watch within 15 days and shall deliver the same in good running condition within seven days next on the complainant's payment of Rs. 35/-.

3. Challenging the above decision of the District Forum the appellant argues that the watch had inherent manufacturing defect for which the battery could not work as according to him the normal life of a battery is one year. The appellant contended that the argument of the respondent company that the battery became weak for nonuser of the watch properly was a fallacious one and that it must be rejected.

4. We have heard both the parties. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the watch has been repaired this time with care. It is further submitted that the life of the battery is not guaranteed under the warranty and that as such a weak battery or the nonfunctioning of the battery after a short period of its installation does not actually prove the defect of the watch.

5. We have considered the contentions of both the parties. A battery in a quartz watch does not exhaust within six months and there must be some reason for the stoppage of the watch on account of the expiry of life of the battery in such circumstances. We do not accept the reasoning of the watch company that the life of a battery normally expires within a short period or that the non-functioning of the watch on this account is not• a defect. A person purchasing a particu1ar article is entitled to have a defect-free sample of the article. Even if the watch is now handed over to the complainant after a thorough repair, there is no guarantee that it will not cease to function within the extended guarantee period. The very fact that the battery does not have a normal period of life shows that there is some defect in the watch itself. As we have stated above, a purchaser is entitled to a defect free article on payment of its full price. The aim of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to protect the buyer as it would appear from the long title of the Act.

6. The respondent submits that the company is willing to repair the watch thoroughly and give an extended period of guarantee for six months. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant, however, argues that the thorough repair of the watch once before could not prevent the expiry of the life of the battery necessitating a further change of the battery and repair of the watch. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent should either replace the watch by a defect-free one or refund the price of the watch.

7. As discussed above, a purchaser cannot be expected to have the repair of a new watch regularly after six months necessitating the change of battery every time and the inevitable conclusion is that there is something defe