K P G NAIR Vs. P V THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in O. P.182/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam are the appellants. The complainant sought for redressal of his grievance by direction to pay the value of the inverter that he purchased from the opposite party on payment of consideration of Rs.11,750/-; he alleged that the inverter had a warranty for one year; it developed defects during the warranty period and though on such occasions the opposite parties' technicians attempted to rectify the defects the same persisted; that would amount to manufacturing defect, and therefore, wanted direction as indicated above. In the version filed by the opposite parties they challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum and sought to maintain that the defect arose during the warranty period and on intimation their technicians cured the same. They further said, it is not true that the complainant sustained injury on account of the defect in the inverter. Therefore, they wanted dismissal of the complaint. Complainant produced Exts. P1 to P5 series. Complainant gave evidence as P. W.1. On behalf of the opposite parties D. W.1 was examined. On a consideration of the said material the District Forum made a direction to return the price of the inverter Rs.11,750/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase and also awarded costs of Rs.1,000/-; as noticed the said direction is under challenge at the hands of the appellants/opposite parties.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant though challenged the direction stated before us; his party is willing to replace the inverter with a new defect-free inverter of the same brand; consequently, according to him, the direction given by the District Forum is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant sought to support the said direction maintaining that since the inverter become faulty as many as 10 times during the warranty period itself, the inference possible is, that the inverter suffers from manufacturing defect. And with due regard to the said aspect, it was only proper for the District Forum to have made the direction. According to the learned Counsel since even repair on 10 occasions proved not successful replacement of the same with another inverter cannot inspire confidence that the same would function properly. It was also urged by the learned Counsel that 18% interest was awarded by the District Forum. Taking into account the inconvenience and loss that was suffered by the complainant/respondent on account of the frequent defects, it cannot be disputed that the complainant is entitled to the direction.

(3.) Ext. P5 series are the job cards, and job cards dated 30.12.1997, 24.1.1998, and 4.3.1998 would show that the defect persisted and it was not cured. The cumulative effect of the job cards is that the equipment suffered from manufacturing defect. Therefore, simply because an expert did not examine the equipment and file a report, in the context of the material produced, one cannot find against the complainant. In fact the very offer by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellants are willing to replace the inverter with the same brand, itself is indicative of the fact that the inverter in question suffered from defect. Now the only question that remains is as to what could be the appropriate relief in the given circumstance. As per Sec.14 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when the nature of the defect is as found above, the relief to which the complainant would be entitled to is, to have the inverter replaced with a new defect-free inverter of the same brand, failing which the complainant would be entitled to the return of the purchase price with interest at 18%. Certainly on such replacement the complainant would be entitled to have a fresh warranty for one year from the date of replacement. That is the only modification that is required in the given circumstance.