T G ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. GOPAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The complainant placed an order with the opposite party No.1 for the supply of one Riat Make RS-3 Model 600 mm (24") capacity cylindrical grinder with motor and accessories manufactured by the second opposite party. The machinery was supplied on 30.1.91. A sum of Rs.1,25,490/- was paidin cluding a sum of Rs.8,500/- towards freight charges. The machinery was put to use in July '91, because of some delay in getting power connection. From the very beginning the machinery developed oil leakage in spindle and ovalty in pieces that were grinned. The first opposite party was informed of the same and its Service Engineer tried to set right the problem, but in vain. The first opposite party requested the second opposite party to send the manufacturer's technician from Ludhiana. After much delay the manufacturer's technician Mr. Kundan Singh inspected the machinery, but he was not able to rectify the defects. According to the complainant some of the components such as Balancing stand, Balancing Mandrel, Alien Key Set, Spanner Set, Operation Manual and Name Plate of the machine were not also supplied. Both the parties were negligent in rendering services and consequently a legal notice was issued by the complainant on 13.2.92 without any response. Hence this complaint directing the opposite parties to replace the machinery with a new one and other damages.

(3.) The first opposite party in its counter admitted the supply of the machine, but contended that it was for commercial purpose. The first opposite party is only a channalising agent between the complainant and the second opposite party, manufacturer. According to the opposite party No.1, a service engineer was deputed to attend the problems and it was revealed that the damage could have occurred due to operation of the machinery through inexperienced hands. The mechanic of the second opposite party visited Coimbatore and set right the matter. As defects were still not rectified, the first opposite party sought the help of experienced technician from M/s. PSG and those efforts are proved futile. The first opposite party has taken every possible steps, but it could not rectify the manufacturing defects. It was not therefore liable.