BELL AGROMACHINE LIMITED Vs. VENKAPPA PUNDAPPA CHAVALAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is by the Opposite Party (for short, the O.P. ) challenging the Order of the District Forum allowing the Complaint of the complainant.

(2.) THE complainant had purchased an Agrovator of 42 Blades of 180 CM with Chain Drive for Rs. 59,200 on 29.4.2000 from the O.P. for removal of sugarcane roots through the Karnataka Agro Industrial Corporation, Belgaum. Thereafter, when the complainant started using the said machinery, Bevel Gear and Bevel Pinion of the machinery was cut. Due to this the complainant was not in a position to use the machinery. Therefore, he took the said machinery to the O.P. for repairs on 26.6.2000. The O.P. repaired the said machinery by replacing the Bevel Gear and Bevel Pinion. For this the O.P. has collected a sum of Rs. 3,923 from the complainant towards repair charges and cost of parts replaced. As per the terms and conditions of the sale, the period of warranty was one year from the date of the purchase. The machinery was brought by the complainant to the O.P. on 26.6.2000 i.e., almost within two months from the date of the purchase. When the warranty was subsisting it is not known how the O.P. had charged a sum of Rs. 3,923. After the said repair, the complainant again suffered a setback as the output shaft of the machinery was cut somewhere in the month of December, 2000. With this complaint when the machinery was brought to the O.P., the O.P. attended to the repair but again charged a sum of Rs. 1,300. Again when the machinery was being used, it was struck due to breaking of Bevel Gear and Bevel Pinion again just within two days from the date of the repair. To get the machinery repaired, again the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs. 2,840. When all these complaints regarding defect in the machinery occurred during the warranty period, it is not known how the O.P. could collect the money towards the cost of replacement of parts and repair charges, as it was the duty of the O.P. to attend to the defects, if any, pointed out free of cost during the warranty period.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum the O.P. has not produced any positive evidence to show that there were no defects in the machinery purchased by the complainant. The complainant has purchased the said machinery for his livelihood by way of self -employment but ultimately he was not in a position to make use of the same because of the manufacturing defect in the machinery itself. If a new machinery were to come for repairs as many as three times within the warranty period, necessarily it is due to the manufacturing defect in the machinery itself. Therefore, the District Forum has rightly allowed the Complaint of the complainant by issuing a direction to the O.P. to replace the machinery.