K LALL Vs. SAM TURBO INDUSTRY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint of the appellant for replacing of water purifier purchased by him from the respondent which was found to be defective, was dismissed vide order dated 17th of September, 1999 passed by the District Forum, on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that he had entered into an annual maintenance contract after the expiry of guarantee period. So much so, a cost of Rs.100/- was also imposed upon the appellant on account of the complaint being mischievous. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Admittedly, water purifier was purchased by the appellant on 6.8.1996 for Rs.6,368/- but according to the appellant it was of inferior quality, as from day one it did not function properly. The main fault occurred on 29th of December, 1997 i. e. , after the guarantee period was over and he was asked to enter into annual maintenance contract on 7th August, 1998 on paying Rs.950/-. He was under the impression that the contract was for Rs.300/- and accordingly he sent a cheque of Rs.300/-, but subsequently he was informed that the amount of the maintenance contract was Rs.950/-. The appellant sent the remaining amount by way of cheque. According to the respondents, on receipt of the aforesaid amount, they rendered satisfactory service on 1st December, 1998, 5th December, 1998 and 19th March, 1999.

(3.) In view of the fact that the machine was attended to 3 to 4 times within a span of 3 months the inference can be drawn than it was not providing satisfactory service. However, there is no reason to disbelieve plea of appellant that he had telephoned the respondents several times about the defects in the machine. Ultmately he sent a written communication in this regard on 29th December, 97 which was beyond the period of guarantee though complaint was made that the machine was of sub-standard nature and was not functioning properly.