NEO HYDRAULICS Vs. LEENA SANJAY MALOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Opposite Party (petitioner herein) has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 22. 7. 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh in Appeal No. 947/2005.

(2.) THE complainant (respondent herein) along with her husband does the work of supply of construction materials for earning their livelihood. She purchased a loading machine from the petitioner by taking a loan of Rs. 4,95,000/ -. The machine was supplied to her at Seoni for which a guarantee of one year was given. Soon after the purchase, day-to-day problems started coming up in the machine and it stopped working. The respondent telephonically complained regarding the defects in the machine to the petitioner and requested for rectifying the defects, to which the petitioner responded by its letter dated 15. 3. 2004 stating therein that because of the recondition, transmission and new type of design, normally in the first year, some problems do arise and the machine stops working of and on and after one year, when the driver gets trained and experienced, the loader starts working without casual stoppage. The petitioner offered to co-operate with the respondent and agreed to send the mechanic to remove the defects at its own cost. The petitioner also agreed that after the starting of the hot mix plant, it would depute a person for a period of one month to ensure that the machine does not stop suddenly. But the machine was not got rectified by the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER waiting for a period of three months, the respondent issued a Legal Notice through an advocate on 25. 6. 2004 to the petitioner by Registered Post, which the petitioner refused to accept. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, Seoni for grant of Rs. 4,95,000/- as the price of the machine along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, Rs. 75,000/- as compensation, Rs. 2,500/- towards legal expenses and costs.