Order No. 17 dt. 29/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one motorized trade mill being model no.W396 from the o.p. at a price of Rs.42,700/-. After using the said machine it was found that there was some technical faults which was brought to the notice of o.p. but o.p. informed the complainant that the error was not covered under warranty and accordingly the complainant had to pay Rs.4250/- for the repairing. After some time it was found that the same problem again cropped up and the complainant brought the said fact to the notice of o.p. but o.p. did not take any action. It is the contention of the complainant that the machine was defective and for which the complainant filed this case praying for necessary direction upon the o.p. for replacement of the machine and also pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the machine was extensively used and from the wear and tear it appears that the machine was used by multiple heavy weight person on prolonged period of time on daily basis and such use of machine for prolonged period the belt and the deck of the machine became weak and the same was repaired by o.p. The o.p. further stated that the complainant will be provided all sorts of services if it is required which is beyond the scope of warranty. Because of wrong handling of the machine the defect arose and there was no mechanical defect in the said machine. Accordingly the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the machine had any mechanical defect.
- Whether the o.p. committed any deficiency in service.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the documents filed by complainant proves that the machine was purchased from the o.p. and with the using of the machine for a few months some defects were found which was brought to the notice of the o.p. though the same was repaired by the complainant had to pay Rs.4250/-, subsequently further defect arose and the same was brought to the notice of o.p. who informed the complainant due to wrong handling of the machine the said defect has recurred further. Ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that due to mechanical defect of the said machine the complainant could not get proper service from the said machine as such the complainant filed this case praying for reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the machine was wrongly handled and it was found that the said machine was extensively used and from the wear and tear it appears that the same was used by multiple heavy weight person for prolonged period of time on daily basis. In spite of such fact the o.p. stated that the said company will provide all sorts of work of repairing for future without any amount i.e. free of cost service would be rendered. Apart from the said fact the o.p. stated that the complainant did not pray for appointment of any expert to prove that the machine had mechanical defect and in this respect ld. lawyer for the o.p. relied on a decision as reported in I (2010) CPJ 19 NC wherein it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that in absence of any expert report the allegation of the complainant that there was manufacturing defect cannot be established and accordingly the complaint ought to be dismissed with cost.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the machine was purchased from the o.p. and within a few months of the said purchase the machine developed some problems and the complainant contacted the o.p. and the o.p. made repairing of the said machine since the defect was not covered within warranty an amount of Rs.4250/- was charged. Though the complainant claimed that the machine had mechanical defect but the o.p. denied the same and in order to corroborate the allegation of the complainant that the machine had the mechanical defect no prayer was made by the complainant for appointment of an expert to ascertain the actual defect of the machine or due to misusing of the machine those problems had cropped up. In view of the said fact and also relying on the decision as reported in I (2010) CPJ 19 NC we hold that the manufacturing defects can only be ascertained after getting an opinion from an expert but here in this case no such opinion has come before this Forum, therefore we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the case to ascertain the defect of the machine as alleged by the complainant. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.652/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
