PRAKASH NARAIN MISRA Vs. SALMANI ELECTRONICS
LAWS(UPCDRC)-2007-10-3
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 08,2007

PRAKASH NARAIN MISRA Appellant
VERSUS
Salmani Electronics Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.4.2004 passed in the complaint Case No. 3/2003 by the District Forum, Jaunpur.
(2.) THE case was taken up in the revised list. Heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the impugned judgment and order, grounds of appeal and other materials available on record.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment in question on the ground that order for repairing is not justified as the inverter and the Exide battery, both were having inherent manufacturing defects and its repair would not have served any useful purpose. More so. the learned District Forum erred in law in awarding the token compensation of a sum of Rs. 500.00 whereas for the mental pain and agony, the compensation should have been much more. In the instant case, according to the complainant s case the inverter and the Exide battery were purchased from the shop of opposite party No. 1 on 5.4.2002 after paying Rs. 4,800.00 for the battery and Rs. 4,500.00 towards inverter and receipts in lieu thereof were received. The guarantee was of one year but both went out of order just within the use of a week. When the protests were made, instead of rectifying the defects, evasive answers were given and even abusive languages were used by the opposite party No. 1. The case set up by opposite party No. 1 in its written statement is that a 50 watt inverter was sold for Rs. 4,500.00 and the same was installed with a specific directions that it should be equipped with stabilizer and even the electricity was directed to be connected but neither was done. The factum of the sale of the Exide battery was also disputed. Admittedly in the instant case both the inverter and the battery were lying unused till the date of the order and even at present, with the respondent No. 1. The same have not been returned to the complainant after rectification of defects. The nature of the goods i.e., inverter and the battery is such which obviously loses its utility after long lapse of time. No useful purpose, thus, could have been served by asking to get it rectified. The sets being found not workable just within the use of 7 days make it clear that there we, inherent manufacturing defects. Under the circumstances, more justified order would have been to have asked the respondent No. 1 for the replacement of the inverter and the battery or to have asked the opposite party No. 1 to refund the money which was received towards consideration of the goods. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the impugned order needs modification. Accordingly, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served in case a sum of Rs. 9,300.00 is ordered to be refunded along with the compensation of Rs. 500.00. However, in the circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any interest. ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The respondent No. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 9,300.00 in lieu of inverter and battery and Rs. 500.00 towards compensation within one month of the receipt of the order. In the event of non -payment the complainant will be entitled for interest @ 9% from 5.4.2002 till the date of payment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.