Mrs. J. Nag, President - The fact of the case is that Respondent Sri Krishna Kamal Ganguli, purchased a Food Processor Machine from the Appellant M/s. Indian Sewing Machine Co. Ltd., on 28th May, 1991 at the cost of Rs. 3,284/-. The said machine developed trouble after a period of about six months and was duly repaired by the Appellant. Thereafter again on 24th January, and on 10th March, 1992 further repairs were done by the Appellant Company when the D.G. Jars also had to be replaced on both the occasions. Even then the machine did not work to the satisfaction of the buyer and he being aggrieved by the repeated trouble of the machine approached the Appellant company to replace/refund the cost of the machine along with due compensation.

2. On 12th May, 1992 a suit was filed by the Respondent for refund of the sum of Rs. 3,284/ with 12% interest to be calculated from the date of purchase till the date of actual payment, and compensation to be awarded for Rs. 1,000/-.

3. The Ld. Calcutta District Forum passed an ex-parte decree on 6th July, 1992 for refund of the sum of Rs. 3,284/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase till the date of actual payment, compensation Rs.500/-.

4. On 22nd September, 1992 the Appellant filed an application for recalling the order of CDF dated 6th July and stay operation of the order with the stipulation that the matter will be again heard .on merit. The Respondent also filed an Execution Petition under section 27 of the C.P. Act of 1986 for non-compliance of the order dated 6th July. The Ld. GDF heard both the sides perused the matter and passed this purported cogent order on 13th January, 1993 against which the Appellant filed this instant appeals.

5. The contention of the Appellant is that there was no concluded agreement/contract or any binding or any obligation on the part of the Appellant Company to refund the money with interest being cost price of the machine in the event of rendering service of them within the warranty period. Further, after having taken advantage of the Agreement the Respondent enjoyed the benefit of the machine for six months without fault. But the Respondent wrongfully filed the case within warranty period, although it was/is sti1l ready to render service on free of cost like other previous occasions as done on 3.12.1991, 24.1.1992 and 10.3.1992. The Appellant also submits that they never agreed to obey the order of the Ld. CDF and as such it was not a consent order.

6. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submits that the machine had its inherent defects which was pointed out to the Appellant from time to time and as such he D.C. Jar had to be replaced twice. Even then the machine did not work properly. Being disgusted and dissatisfied, the Respondent had no other alternative but to ask for the refund of the machine along with the interest. And if the warranty period is over the Respondent apprehends to suffer immensely for the maintenance of such a defective machine. The ex-parte order of the Ld. CDF passed on 6th July, 1992 was duly communicated to the Appellant in time which they did not obey and it is only when the execution petition was filed by the Respondent the Appellant separated after about 3 months and made application for recalling the order, and again when the consent order was passed by the CDF, Appellant made this instant appeal.

7. On perusal of the matter and submissions made by both the parties we are of the opinion that the machine had its inherent defects for which it was necessary to repair it again and again within the warranty period of one year. Therefore, the apprehension of the Respondent is justified in seeking relief from the, Redressal Forum even within this Warranty period. The wilful negligence on the part of the Appellant to give due importance to the genuine grievance of the consumer and even the order of the consumer Disputes Redressal Forum cannot be covered by the Appellant under any pretex of argument. We therefore, uphold the order o