For the Respondent       :          Mr.A.K. Singh, Advocate

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. 

Respondents/complainants purchased 5 photocopiers from the petitioner in the year 1994-95.  Finding that the machines were defective, respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming refund of the entire cost of the photocopiers, which came to Rs.8,82,000/-. 

District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing thus :

“Now this statement does not say that the machine has become unserviceable.  This rather says that the machine should be got repaired and only thereafter the complainant can opt for Buy Back Scheme.  In the facts and circumstances of the case we conclude that the complainant has failed to prove that the photocopiers suffer from any manufacturing defect or that the OP did not attend to the complaints under the comprehensive maintenance scheme.  Consequently the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.  No orders as to cost.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties.  File be consigned to the record room.”

          Against the aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, without recording any finding regarding the defects in the machines, allowed the appeal by directing the petitioner to pay a global compensation of Rs.1 lakh less Rs.22,800/-. 

Court of First Appeal has to record a firm finding of fact after dealing with all the points, decided by the District Forum.  The State Commission has clearly erred in exercising of its jurisdiction in granting a global compensation of Rs.1 lakh less Rs.22,800/- without recording a finding regarding the defects in the machines, especially when the District Forum had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the machines did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. 

Order under appeal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 

Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the State Commission on 6.10.2009.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.