JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President :---This is a complaint filed by Dr. Shirish Bhagwat alleging sale of defective fibreoptic duodeno scope in April, 1991 by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that in April, 1991 he purchased the aforesaid article for a consideration of Rs. 1,41,750 from O.P. No. 1, SISCO. The complainant alleged that the opposite party represented to the complainant that it is a brand new piece and was not used at all, and, therefore, relying on the representation of the opposite party, he purchased the said instrument. The complainant is a Surgeon and dastrointestinal Endoscopist and he required the said scope for his practice as a Medical Surgeon. The complainant alleged that he obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from City Bank with 18% interest p.a. to purchase the said instrument and is paying Rs. 2,773/- towards monthly instalments which includes principal amount and the interest. The complainant alleged that after he purchased the said scope, within 3/4 months of its use its vision diminished. The complainant further alleged that on critical examination he found that on enquiries with the SISCO officials, the said instrument was 4/5 years old bearing No. A-71192. However, accroding to the complainant the said piece was sold to the complainant with the understanding that it was a new one. The complainant stated that he approached the opposite party repeatedly for six months within the warranty period but unfortunately, they refused to-do so and send him an estimate of Rs. 1,24,000 for repairs. A copy of that letter is at Ex. B. The complainant further alleged that he alone is using the said instrument since he has got experienced of handling such instrument as a medical practitioner. The complainant, therefore, alleged in this complaint that since he was sold an old and defective good, he is entitled to claim the replacement of the instrument and compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and the cost of this complaint. 2. Notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 dated 7-7-1993 was issued to both the opposite parties by registered post acknowledgement due which they had received on 12-8-1993. Two postal acknowledgements showing the receipt of the said notice is placed on record. In the said notice it was informed to the opposite party that the complaint is fixed for hearing on 2-9-1993. Two postal acknowledgements showing the receipt of the said notice is placed on record. In the said notice it was informed to the opposite party that the complaint is fixed for hearing on 2-9-1993. On 2-9-1993 the complainant appeared in person and opposite party was represented by Shri Dalvi, Advocate. The complaint was adjourned and fixed on 14-10-1993 for final hearing. During the aforesaid time, the opposite party did not file any written version within the stipulated time. However, on 14-8-1992, Shri Dalvi, Advocate appeared before this Commission representing the opposite party. However, on enquiry, we find that Shri Dalvi did not have any written authority to represent the opposite party in this complaint. However, Shri Dalvi, Advocate requested for an adjournment on the ground that some other Advocate would be engaged by the opposite party. However, the written authority of the same is not placed on record to show that the opposite party is really keen to represent its case before this Commission. We find that the request for adjournment made by Shri Dalvi was frivilous and without any justifiable reason and, therefore, we rejected the request and proceeded further to hear the complainant. Thereafter, we heard the complainant in person. Shri Dalvi placed written version on behalf of O.P. signed by one Mr. Kirti Bacchani, but it is not mentioned therein whether the said written version has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 or opposite party No. 2. The said written version stated to be on solemen affirmation but not sworn before any competent authority. 3. After hearing the complaint and after perusing the allegations in the complaint, we find that the allegations made by the complainant are duly supported by documentary evidence. Ex. `A is the purchase bill of the instrument for Rs. 1,47,750/- in which the opposite party is shown as manufacturer of surgical instrument. The complainant has also filed a copy of his letter dated 2-12-1991 addressed to opposite party informing that the scope sold to him was not a new piece and its vision has been diminished, vide Ex. `C dated 11-1-1992. The complainant also intimated to the opposite party representing his grievance and further to look into the matter. It is, therefore, clear that the complainants allegations are duly supported by documentary evidence on record and we further find that these documents are not controverted by the opposite parties. `C dated 11-1-1992. The complainant also intimated to the opposite party representing his grievance and further to look into the matter. It is, therefore, clear that the complainants allegations are duly supported by documentary evidence on record and we further find that these documents are not controverted by the opposite parties. We have also considered the written version filed by the opposite party in which technical objections as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the point of limitation has been raised. We find that there is no force in any of the technical objections since this scope has been delivered to the complainant at Bombay and since the complainant has made payment from Bombay, this Commission has jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Similarly, since we find that the complaint has been filed within the limitation of three years. The contention raised by the opposite party that under section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant should have filed this within a period of one year is not correct since the complaint was filed on 12-8-1992 when the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not amended reducing the limit of three years to the period of one year. Thus, we find that the opposite party miserably failed in controverting the allegations made by the complainant. Under these circumstances, we find that the complainants complaint is genuine and requires to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER 4. The complaint is allowed. The complainant has pressed the replacement of the instrument at the time of arguments and submitted that in view of the strained relations between the parties, he should be refunded the price of the scope. The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. In our view, it will meet the ends of justice if the complainant is refunded Rs. 1,41,750/- with 18% interest from April, 1991 till realisation. Similarly, the complainant is also required to compensate the loss he suffered. We quantify the complainants loss for Rs. 5,000 since the complainant had another equipment for his use. Consequent on the refund of the aforesaid amount, the instrument in question be returned to the opposite party by the complainant. The opposite party shall make all the payments within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Claim decreed with interest.