Guru Nanak Motors vs Yadvinder Singh Dhull

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2002 passed by District Forum, Hisar in Complaint Case No. 160 of 2002 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent was accepted against the appellant -opposite party.

SHORTLY stated, the facts of the case are that in the month of July, 2000 the complainant has deposited Rs. 1,000 as advance with the appellant for installation of Inverter of 500 KV. Thereafter, the inverter was installed at the house of the complainant against the payment of Rs. 6,000 made through cheque. Right from the beginning, the complainant found mal -functioning in the inverter. During the period of 20 months, as many as 57 complaints were lodged with the appellant by the complainant. The appellant had sent an electrician after 2/3 days of the lodging of the complaint and despite replacement of battery, there was no improvement in the functioning of the inverter. When the opposite party failed to rectify the defects in the inverter, he filed the present complaint. While refuting the stand of the complainant in the written statement filed by the opposite party, it was stated that the inverter in question was sold for consideration amount of Rs. 7,500, out of which Rs. 6,000 was paid through cheque and balance amount was agreed to be paid later on as the complainant was known to the opposite party. The other allegations regarding 57 complaints made with regard to the mal -functioning of the inverter during the period of 20 months were refuted as pure concocted story put up in order not to make payment of Rs. 1,500 due towards price of the inverter to the opposite party. The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties found deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and for that reason directed it to pay Rs. 7,000 as price of the inverter along with interest @ 18% per annum from the July, 2000 till its realization, besides Rs. 4,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 1,100 as litigation expenses to the complainant.

NONE has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the respondent at length.

THE definite assertion of the complainant in the complaint was that right from the time the inverter was installed at his residence its service was erratic. The complainant has reported about the defective functioning of the inverter as many as 57 times to the appellant and the appellant had been reluctantly deputing an electrician after 2/3 days of the receipt of the complaint made by the complainant and had also replaced the battery but did not improve the functioning of the inverter. It is when the appellant refused to rectify the defect in the inverter on the plea that warranty period had already expired, he was forced to move the District Forum to seek redressal of his grievance. It deserves to be noticed that the opposite party had not disputed that the complaints were received with regard to the mal -functioning of the inverter but those complaints have been termed as ''minor problems which were immediately attended to by the mechanic deputed for the said purpose''. Needless to say that this is a case where deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - appellant is writ large on the face of the record. Understandably, as inverter was not functioning properly it impelled the complainant to complaint to the opposite party as many as 57 times. We find nothing on record even remotely to infer that the allegations in this regard made in the complaint have been cooked up as sought to be profounded by the opposite party, rather, there is a definite attempt on the part of the opposite party to avoid liability as they have tried to confine the terms of the warranty covering the repairs only and the replacement of the inverter sold. Even allegations of less payment of Rs. 1,500 towards price of the inverter as Rs. 7,500 have been made against the complainant without any supporting material in this regard. No document or certificate of any mechanic has been produced on record to establish the nature of the mal -functioning or defect in the inverter by the complainant. But this is a case where burden so as to mal -functioning of the inverter stood discharged in view of number of complaints made by the complainant to the opposite party. The burden shifted upon the opposite party because it is admitted by the opposite party that they have been deputing their mechanic for carrying out the repairs of the inverter when it was reported by the complainant to it. The opposite party has not brought on record the exact nature of the defects which contributed to the mal -functioning of the inverter. Having not done so, they cannot avoid liability. Under the circumstances of the case, the District Forum was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However, from the impugned order, we find that while directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 7,000 which was price of the inverter interest @ 18% per annum from July, 2000 till realisation have been ordered to be paid. The interest being on higher side. We reduce the same to 9% instead of 18%. We further direct that the complainant shall deliver the inverter to the opposite party in compliance of the direction contained in this order. Rest of the directions given in the award are maintained. With the modification stated above, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.