- (1.) THE complainants have come forward with this complaint for replacement of 15 HP motor submersible pump with a new one and pay a sum of Rs. 4,190/ - towards the cost incurred in that connection, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards mental agony and Rs. 85,000/ - towards loss of income.
(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party contending that what was supplied was a submersible motor pump set in good condition and the motor had to be operated in "delta" mode connection and if there is any voltage drop, the motor will not start in "star" mode, but it will run without any problem in "delta" mode for which the pump set was manufactured. The complainant has not done the electrical installation properly. Due to wrong installation and connection, it had not run in "star" mode and after the complaint the opposite party inspected and rectified the motor and pump set without any charge. Therefore, the claim made by the complainant is unjustified. It is the duty of the complainants to have brought the motor and he pump set to the factory so that it could have been checked, but this they have omitted to do. During the initial hearings; it was suggested by the Hon ble Court to substitute and replace it with a new motor for which the opposite parties were agreeable and the complainants also agreed to withdraw the application. But at the instigation of others, the complainants have now chosen to go back of their words.
(3.) THE lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace the motor and pump set and also to pay a sum of Rs. 4,190/ - along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - for mental agony and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - for loss of income. Hence the present appeal. One of the points for the lower Forum to come to the conclusion is set out in paragraph 7 where it is stated that the opposite parties have agreed to replace the motor before the Forum and this would show that there must have been some defect and, therefore, it is that they have agreed to replace the motor within a month. The complainant cannot merely succeed on the ground of an event that took place after the filing of the complaint. When a complaint is laid and a famous manufacturer is accused of deficiency in service in manufacturing and supplying the machinery with defect, it is not uncommon for the manufacturer or the persons placed in their position to offer to settle the matter. But from that alone it will not follow that they have offered to settle it because there was a defect. In other words, such an offer of settlement or of a replacement cannot be equated to an admission of deficiency in service or defect in the manufactured goods. Such offers are made very often as a gesture of goodwill and trade promotion. Therefore, to base one s finding upon that, is really surprising.;