Decided on August 12,2010



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 also.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.