THRESSIAMMA PAUL Vs. KILCO PERFECT MACHINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming compensation from the opposite parties alleging defect in the goods supplied by the first opposite party.

(2.) The material allegations in the complaint are as follows: neither the complainant nor her husband had any job and the complainant obtained a loan from the second opposite party, the Kerala Financial Corporation. An amount of Rs.1,39,000/- was received from the second opposite party by way of loan and she constructed shed and installed the machine and started an oil mill under the name and style St. Paul Oil Mills. It started production on 9th December 1989. She also alleged that the second opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.6,790/- out of the amount sanctioned. It was further alleged the ma- chine supplied was defective and sub-standard and was not functioning properly. The matter was reported to the first opposite party and repair was done several times. Many spare parts were purchased on the instruction of the technician deputed by the first opposite party for repairs. However, it did not improve the functioning of the machine. She sustained a loss of about 2 lakhs after the starting of the mill. She sent a notice through the Lawyer to the second opposite party. She also alleged that she purchased this machine from the first opposite party as per the instruction of second opposite party and both the opposite par- ties are responsible all the loss sustained by her. In the circumstances she is entitled to get the relief sought for in the complaint.

(3.) In the version filed by the opposite party the allegations of the complaint were denied and it was contended that the claim was barred by limitation. It was also averred that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the manufacturer M/s. Kanpur Foundaries Miraj, U. P. has not been impleaded. It is also averred that the allegations are against the quality of the machine and it is the manufacturer who is bound to answer to the allegations. It is further averred that the complainant filed O. P. No.414/91 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, which was dismissed and it was after lapse of five years the complaint was again filed before this Commission. It is also stated that the first opposite party is not the agent of the second opposite party and the first opposite party is only an approved distributor-cum-seller of goods and there is no relationship of the principal and agent between the first opposite party and the second opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The first opposite party did not erect the machine and had only supplied the machine. There was no occasion for the mechanics of the first opposite party to express any opinion about the machinery and much less to give it in writing as to the quality or fitness of the machinery. This opposite party also does not know whether he sustained loss. He had no notice from the complainant on any of the aspects.