ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Vs. A LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the opposite parties against the Order dated 26th February, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras (for short the State Commission) in O.P. No. 219/92. By the impugned Order the opposite parties have been directed to refund to the complainant (Respondent herein) the price for the instrument namely Rs. 22,408.50 and take back the instrument and also pay to the complainant Rs. 30,438/ - being the loss sustained by him on account of malfunctioning of the instrument. The opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/ - to the complainant as compensation.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that he is running a Public Phone Booth with STD and ISD facilities. He purchased Intellitrac STD/PCO with programming software and booth display from the opposite parties on 14th August, 1991 for Rs. 22,408.50. The said instrument was manufactured by the first Appellant (who was first opposite party in the complaint) and sold by the second appellant (who was Opposite Party No. 2 in the complaint). The special features of the instrument were to be (i) the number dialed will be displayed on the monitor and when che answering party answers the call the meter starts counting, (ii) based on the above counting the instrument is to calculate the cost of the metered calles and give the exact amount due. In March, 1992 the complainant found that the instrument was mal -functioning. When the customers dialed an international or STD number and immediately thereafter dialed local number the instrument displayed on the monitor only the local number and recorded charges only for local calls when actually customer was able to talk on the STD/ISD number for several minute?. On this account there was a huge difference between the bills as per the instrument and the meter installed in the Telephone Exchange which recorded the International or STD calls with the result the complainant had to pay excessive charges to the Telephone Department while he could collect only local call charges from the customers. This defect was reported to the second opposite party who tried to rectify it on 2nd March, 1992. However, the defect could not be rectified and the instrument continued to give faulty information. On account of this malfunctioning of the instrument the complainant incurred loss of Rs. 30,436/ -. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1.00 lakhs as compensation and refund of the price of the instrument.

(3.) AS the case related to the malfunctioning of the instrument, the State Commission appointed an Advocate Commissioner (hereinafter referred as the Commissioner) with the consent of both the parties to inspect the Machine, monitor its working and submit a report. The Commissioner inspected the machinery in the presence of the complainant, his Advocate and the Advocate for the opposite parties. The relevant part of his report runs as follows :