DEETI AGENCIES Vs. SABANA
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
M. THANIKACHALAM J. -
(1.) The unsuccessful complainant, is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant being a trader in dry fruits, had purchased a vacuum
packaging machine, manufactured by the 1st opposite party, from its
dealer, the 2nd opposite party, for a sum of Rs.70000/-, for the purpose
of packing the dry fruits. From the date of installation of the machine,
it was not performing well, due to manufacturing defect, and the dry
fruits packed by the machine, decayed. Therefore, the complainant
requested the 2nd opposite party to rectify the mistake, or replace the
defective machinery, for which though there was promise, not put into
action. Issuance of lawyers notice also, requesting the opposite
parties, to replace or repair the defective machinery, failed to yield
any positive result. By the supply of defective machine, the petitioner
has undergone loss, amounting to Rs.3 lakhs, which the opposite parties
are liable to pay as compensation. Hence the complainant is constrained
to file a case, for replacement of the machine purchased, or in the
alternative for the recovery of a sum of Rs.70000/-, in addition to a sum
of Rs.3 lakhs, by way of compensation.
(3.) The 1st opposite party admitting the sale of the machine, would
contend, that till the warranty period, they have periodically serviced
the machinery, and the same was in good condition, functioning without
any defects. In the month of November 2003, the complainant approached
this opposite party to help for the sale of the machine, for which they
have also agreed, not materialized, and thereafter alone a false notice
has been issued, for which proper reply has been given. The complainant
is not a consumer, and as such the petition itself is not maintainable,
praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further averments
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.