D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. It is the opposite party who is appellant before us. Complaint of the respondent-complainant, National Research Development Corporation of India alleging deficiency in service of part of the appellant in respect of UPS purchased by the complainant from the appellant, was allowed by the State Commission. It was directed that the appellant-opposite party shall refund to the complainant Rs. 2,26,287.50 being the cost of UPS less Rs. 90,000/- which was the price of the batteries which were utilised by the complainant. A further sum of Rs. 12,000/- was also awarded to the complainant which amount had been received by the appellant towards the service contract. These two amounts were to carry interest @ 22% per annum. A further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also awarded as compensation. It was directed that the appellant shall be entitled to receive the UPS system as it is from the complainant without batteries. Rs. 5000/- was awarded as cost to the complainant. Aggrieved of this order, appellant being the opposite party before the State Commission has filed this appeal.
2. On 14.8.1989 appellant installed UPS system at the premises of the respondent-complainant. It had a warranty for one year which expired on 13.8.1990. Contention of complainant was that in mid August, 1990 itself defects developed in the UPS and appellant was duly intimated but nothing was done. A telex was sent on 17.9.1990, stating that UPS was out of order and request was made to the appellant to send its service engineer for rectifying the fault. It would appear that there was dispute between the parties inasmuch as it was the stand of the appellant that since warranty period expired, a fresh contract would have to be entered into and that for the repair of the UPS separate payment would have to be made. For this appellant wanted an amount of Rs. 9820/-. Annual maintenance charges were Rs. 12,000/-. By letter dated 15.10.90 a cheque for this amount was sent by the complainant being the charges for the period 1.10.90 to 30.10.91. Stand of the appellant as noted above was that fresh service contract will be entered into after the charges of Rs. 9,820/- for repairs were paid. This was communicated to the complainant by letter dated 22/23.10.1990 of the appellant. In response to this, complainant sent a letter dated 12.12.90 stating that UPS was not in order since mid August and in spite of repeated calls none from the appellant's side came to rectify the machine after they had taken away the defective parts to their factory and that later on a bill amounting to Rs. 8000/- was submitted for rectifying the part. It was asserted that discontinuity of the service contract was on account of procedural delay. Appellant by its letter dated 10.1.1991 agreeing to Rs. 2000/- towards repair charges and mentioned in the receipt of the cheque dated 4.10.1990 for Rs. 12,000/- towards payment of annual maintenance contract w.e.f. 1.10.90 to 30.9.91. Admittedly the cheque had since been encashed by the appellant. By letter dated 25.1.1991 complainant agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to rectify the machine. Since nothing was heard from the appellant, complainant sent reminders. It would appear now the appellant started rasing excuses that the complainant had specifically mentioned that service contract would be effective from 1.10.1990. It was the case of the appellant that Rs. 2000/- had to be paid in advance. Then by letter dated 16.12.91 appellant gave an estimate of Rs. 18,570/- for repair of the UPS and said that amount of Rs. 12,000/- received by it towards annual maintenance contract be adjusted towards that amount. It wanted the balance amount to be paid within 7 days of the rectification of the UPS system by the complainant.
3. State Commission considered all the relevant material on record and came to the conclusion that there was a concluded contract after appellant had encashed the cheque for Rs. 12,000/- and also agreed to repair the UPS for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- State Commission overruled various other preliminary objections raised by the complainant as to the maintainability of the complaint.
4. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission. Appellant was certainly deficient in service in not repairing the UPS. However, we find that interest @ 22% awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side and we reduce the same to 12% per annum. We also do not find that there was any justification for the State Commission to award compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. That amount also stands deleted. With this modification this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
