M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The unsuccessful opposite party in COP.139/2003 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, is the appellant.
(2.) The respondent herein as complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation, alleging deficiency in service on the grounds with among other grounds, that he had sent the Kirloskar Oil Engine, purchased from the opposite party, for service on 04.03.2003, that the opposite party having charged a sum of Rs.4,452.48 towards the replacement of some of the spare parts, did not repaired the engine defect totally, that on the day itself the engine was struck off due to some unknown defect, that a complaint was made on 05.03.2003, for which, also amount was charged for repair, but defects were not rectified properly and thereby the service guaranteed by them is not discharged, whereas, they have caused negligence, for which, they should be directed to pay the above said sum by way of compensation.
(3.) The case was opposed by the opposite party on the grounds with among other grounds, that the complainant is using the engine for operating a paddy thrasher and letting it for hire, thereby, using for commercial venture and therefore the case filed before the District Forum is not maintainable, that the engine has already crossed the period of warranty, that at the request of the complainant, the head assembly of the engine was serviced by some other mechanic known to him, which was fitted and the engine was tested and if any defect therein, the opposite party cannot be held responsible and that the claim of the complainant is malafidy and unwarranted, thereby, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;