M.V.N.MOHAN Vs. M.SURYABHASKARAM
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT -
(1.) THIS petition is
filed by the opposite party No. 2 in C.D. No. 99/1997 on the file of the
District Forum, East Godavari, Kakinada who suffered an order to replace
the old Cannon Copier Machine by a new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.
10,000/ - as general damages for the loss suffered by the complainant and also to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/ -. This order dated 8.7.1999 was
challenged in F.A. No. 408/1999 which was dismissed on 29.4.2003
confirming the order of the District Forum in all respects.
(2.) HOWEVER as the order of the District Forum is not complied by the petitioner the respondent/complainant filed P.P. No. 14/1999 and the
warrants were issued.
(3.) THE question or the dispute between the parties is, since the petitioner failed to comply with the order passed by the District Forum
as confirmed by the State Commission in time he should be debarred from
complying with the first part of the order, namely production or supply
of new machine or whether the complainant is entitled to insist on the
alternate prayer of payment of money. The complainant can ask only
rectification of defects in the goods, but the Forum can grant monetary
compensation if the defects cannot be rectified, but the complainant
cannot ask refund of money only.
Insisting alternate prayer would arise, provided the petitioner fails to honour the main prayer. As the petitioner is prepared to supply
the new machine the question of alternate prayer does not arise. However
as the petitioner failed to comply with the order of the District Forum
in time he has to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. It is
next submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant that
the cost of the machine has come down and as such the complainant suffers
loss if new machine is supplied instead the alternate prayer of the cost
of the machine at the time of purchase may be ordered. We cannot take
into consideration the fluctuations of rates of the machine in the
market. Some times they go up and sometimes the rates come down.
Therefore, as prayed for by the complainant as main prayer i.e. supply of
machine should be ensured and in case the petitioner fails to comply with
the said direction it is open to the complainant to insist on the
alternate prayer. But the order of the District Forum cannot be made
subject to change of rates. Hence we are of the view that the petitioner
should produce the new machine before the District Forum on 30.9.2003 and
the same will be handed over to the complainant on production of the old
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.