SRI KRISHNA ELECTRICALS Vs. C.NATARAJAN
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2011-8-45
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 11,2011

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The first opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/first respondent had purchased a 5 HP Electric Motor from the first opposite party, manufactured by the second opposite party, by paying a sum of Rs.13,474.40p with Starter on 28.09.2005. The warranty was for 12 months from the date of installation or 18 months from the date of discharge from the Workshop. The electric motor was not working properly, it failed to run continuously, which was informed to the opposite parties, in the second week of March 2006, within the warranty period. After much persuasion by the end of March 2006, the first opposite party took the electric motor for repair, replacing/fixing an ordinary submersible motor of 5 HP, which has no capacity to supply water, for drip irrigation to the extent of 1.65 acres. Despite the undertaking, the first opposite party failed to repair and replace the motor purchased by him, and because of the same, there was reduction in the sugarcane yield, causing loss to the extent of Rs.40,000/-, which is liable to be paid by the first opposite party. Despite issuance of notice, the first opposite party practicing unfair trade, committed negligence as well as deficiency and therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the case, seeking direction against the first opposite party to refix the motor showing the test run, in addition to, pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- for the loss of sugarcane as well as for mental agony.
(3.) The first opposite party admitting the purchase of the motor by the complainant, as well taking the motor for repair after warranty period, giving substitute motor, resisted the case inter alia contending that despite information regarding the readiness of the repaired motor, the complainant failed to take the same, for which, they cannot be held responsible, that only after the warranty period, the complainant reported the alleged repair and therefore, they are not bound to replace the motor and since they have not committed any deficiency, not liable to pay any compensation also, praying for the dismissal of the case, denying other averments also.;


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