ORDER
N.C. Gupta, Member
1. The applicant above-named purchased a mono-block pumpset (5HP) for Rs. 5,208 from the above-named respondent on 9th June, 1989. At the time of purchase, the respondent gave a one year guarantee for satisfactory performance of the said machine with the assurance of necessary and timely repair/replacement in case of any defect during the said period of guarantee. The applicant has alleged that the said machine went out of order within a few months of the purchase and was not properly repaired or replaced by the respondent according to the assurance given by him. It is alleged that in spite of repeated requests made to the respondent, the latter did not set the machine right nor replaced the same resulting in heavy loss to the applicant. It is further alleged that due to the aforesaid failure of guarantee, the applicant could not use the machine resulting in total loss of the crop. She had claimed damages as under :
2. The above application was filed along with the main complaint leading to the enquiry into the aforesaid unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent. Enquiry No. UTP 67 of 1990 was in fact started on the complaint of this applicant and the same resulted in an order being passed by the Commissioner on 9th May, 1991, against the present respondent. It was therein held that the respondent had indulged in an unfair trade practice by giving a false warranty in respect of the mono block pump set sold to the applicant and not making good the warranty of maintaining or repairing the product in question in contravention of Clauses (vii) and (viii) of Section 36A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Act, 1969. Accordingly a “cease and desist” order was passed against this respondent restraining it from giving such false warranty or guarantee in respect of the products sold by him.
3. The respondent did not appear to contest the present applicant in spite of due service of notice on it. So the proceedings were held ex parte against the respondent.
4. The applicant in her sworn testimony before the Commission deposed about the purchase of the pump set at a cost of Rs. 5,208, absolute failure of the respondent to fulfil the warranty given at the time of purchase and the damages suffered by her on account of failure of the machine. In her statement on oath, she also deposed about the “cease and desist” order having been passed against the respondent in respect of this very transaction. As regards the amount of compensation, she claimed refund of the original cost plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the said amount and also a sum of Rs. 24,000 towards loss of crop due to utter failure and non-use of the machine. However, the applicant has not at all substantiated her claim for loss due to alleged failure of crop. Crops might have failed for any reason. She has not produced any documentary evidence to support the claim under this head.
5. In the light of the above evidence, we hold that the applicant has suffered loss as a consequence of the unfair trade practice indulged in by the respondent in terms of Clauses (vii) and (viii) of Section 36A(1) of the said Act. As regards the amount of compensation, the applicant is entitled to a total refund of the price paid by her plus interest at 12 per cent. per annum for two years under heads (i) and (ii) above. The loss under head (iii) is not at all proved. Apparently, if the machine did not work at all, the applicant cannot be heard to say that she should have earned a sum of Rs. 24,000 by irrigating the crop with the help of the said machine. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that the applicant owns any agricultural land or that she has suffered any additional loss by reason of non-workability of the machine purchased by her. A reasonable person under such circumstances must be presumed to have his/her work done by purchasing or hiring another machine. So the claim made under head (iii) above cannot be allowed for want of evidence.
6. In conclusion, we hold that the applicant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 6,457.92 and we pass a decree for that amount against the respondent with recurring interest at 12 per cent. per annum on this amount till the date of payment. However, no further interest shall be payable by the respondent if the decretal amount is paid within four weeks, or say, before 30th March, 1992. A copy of this order may be sent to the respondent through registered post at his last known address.
7. Pronounced in open court.