S DHAWAN Vs. BLUE CHIP TECHNOGUARDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. S. Dhawan, complainant purchased Blue Chip Invertor manufactured by M/s. Blue Chip Technology Ltd. (opposite party No.1) through its dealer M/s. Technoguard Electronics (opposite party 2) on 19.5.1996 for Rs.13,500/- including the price of the Invertor as Rs.7,500/- and the balance as the price of the batteries. The Invertor started giving trouble from the very beginning and whenever it was working, it gave service for about one and half hour as against the rated capacity of four hours on full load of 400 watts. In the beginning, repeated calls failed to secure any response. Later on the mechanics of the manufacturer appeared from time to time and purported to carry out repairs. It was found that on numerous occasions, the circuit got burnt and it had to be replaced. The complainant served opposite party by registered letter dated 18.7.1996 and approached the District Forum. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum directed opposite party No.1 to remove the defects in the Invertor free of cost. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order, the complainant filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 (manufacturer) placed on record an estimate of the expenses involved in completely setting right the invertor. The estimate was to be tune of Rs.1,600/-. The appellant agreed to provide new batteries at her own expense. The manufacturer accordingly carried out the repairs at its own expense. The batteries have been provided by the appellant. When the case came up for hearing on 15.6.1998, Mr. P. P. Dhawan, Authorised Representative of the appellant stated that the Invertor was working satisfactorily except on two occasions when with slight manipulation of the on-off switch started working, the Invertor was functioning well.

(3.) We may notice two significant facts. One, admittedly, the manufacturer attended to the complaints of the cunsumer as and when called upon to do so and replaced the burnt parts on several occasions at its own expenses, two, the manufacturer has carried out thorough and extensive repairs and the Invertor is working satisfactorily for the time being. The surviving question is whether in addition to what has been done, the appellant is entitled to any further relief and if so, of what nature. We do not think that any case for awarding compensation in terms of money is made out. In the peculiar facts and circumstances interests of justice would be met if the appellant is given an assurance that the Invertor would carry a fresh warranty from the period it has been thoroughly repaired and made functional during the pendency of the appeal as stated above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be conveyed to both parties as well as District Forum-IV.