HOTEL SAVOY Vs. MALABAR AIRCOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 364 of 2007 of the Munsiff's Cort, Kannur are aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for recovery of damages as confirmed by the Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S. No. 33 of 2009.

(2.) THE appellants purchased a deep freezer from the first respondent on 26.06.2004 for Rs.20,000.00. The first respondent is the dealer while the 3rd respondent is its manufacturer. The second respondent is the branch office of the 3rd respondent. According to the appellants, the first respondent had assured that the deep freezer is of good quality but it developed trouble due to manufacturing defect. The freezer was checked by M/s. Janatha Refrigerator Service Cool Centre. Then it was learned that the cooling coil was of inferior quality. On 11.08.2006 the appellants informed the respondents 1 and 3 about it. But there was no reply. On 28.08.2006 notice was issued through a lawyer demanding the replacement of the deep freezer and to compensate the loss caused to the appellants. The second respondent replied to it agreeing to replace body of the freezer. Accordingly, the freezer was entrusted to the second respondent. But it was not returned. Hence the suit.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that the understanding between the appellants and the respondents 1 and 3 was that after replacement of body of the freezer it would be delivered at the hotel of the appellant but that was not done. It is contended that there was manufacturing defect for the freezer. According to the learned counsel, evidence of the Managing Partner of the first respondent as DW.1 would only show that the first respondent is not liable for any loss caused to the appellant.